Right Attempts To Close Digital Gap

It's no secret that the political right has been left in the digital dust when it comes to online activism, fundraising, voter outreach, etc., etc. But a couple new projects are attempting to close that divide just a tad.

The Next Right (TNR) launched May 27th and has already racked up over 38K page views, according to Sitemeter, by the 29th. Founded by Patrick Ruffini, Soren Dayton and Jon Henke, the project is billed as "the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate."

Reminiscent of Eric Odom's Conservablogs (which looks like it is going under another transformation), TNR offers users their own blog. And, so far at least, the posts have been of the nuts-and-bolts analysis and strategies variety rather than the rants that seem to make up most political sites nowadays. So we'll see if technical analysis trumps partisan screeds.

One note, if you plan on signing up for TNR's RSS feed count on a busy inbox.

The other site that may give Republicans some hope in tapping internet donors is Slatecard. Of the three fledgling GOP online donor sites, Slatecard has apparently come out on top and can now lay claim to being the red ActBlue.

Of course, that claim pales in the actual funds-raised category. Slatecard has just over $300,000 in donations since being launched last year, while the four-year-old ActBlue has raised over $47 million for Democratic candidates.

So far it hasn't exactly been a cash cow for Nevada Republicans. Of the four candidates featured, only John Ensign and Dean Heller have received donations. The grand total? A buck each.

Roger Stone, Nevada Mudslinging and Hillary Fruit

A roundup of things political and some not so (though we did try to make the Synsepalum dulcificum berry story as politically relevant as humanly possible).

• The infamous dirty trickster Roger Stone snares another topflight profile. This time it's The New Yorker highlighting the longtime Republican political operative and his particularly colorful brand of campaign warfare.
• Speaking of political mudslinging, it appears Nevada Dem State Senate-6 candidate Allison Copening (or those supporting her) has hired a DC opposition research firm to dig through GOP incumbent Bob Beers' background. Now that the opening shot has been primed expect a thorough examination of Copening and her business dealings.
• Barack Obama and John Edwards as you've never seen them before.
• And, finally, the berry that makes bitter things seem sweet to the beholder. Or, as it is known in political circles, Hillary Fruit.

But Does Bunce Actually Have Ron Paul's Endorsement?

For our other website, Campaign Emails, we had set up a specific email address to receive each presidential candidates' mailings. And while there have been almost 1,500 since we started late last summer, an unusual one popped up in our inbox Memorial Day.

With a subject reading "Nevada's Ron Paul Congressional Candidates" our initial reaction was that the Texas congressman had officially endorsed someone in the Silver State. However, the actually mailer wasn't from the Paul campaign but from CD-3 Republican candidate Carl Bunce.

Although the email uses key Paul lingo, "I am very lucky to be part of the team that is helping to continue the Revolution here in Nevada! I am proud to say that we have sound Constitutional candidates running in each of Nevada's three Congressional Districts," nowhere does the letter or Bunce's website actually include an endorsement from Paul. In fact, we were hard-pressed to find Paul's name on the site.

So I guess the question is, does giving/renting your presidential email list to specific candidates constitute an endorsement?

McCain To Hold Town Hall Meeting in Reno

In more evidence that the general election campaign has now officially started, John McCain is scheduled to hold a Town Hall Meeting in Reno this Wednesday, May 28, at the Truckee Meadows Boys and Girls Club.

Doors will open at 9 a.m. at the 2680 E 9th St. facility.

Though not required, one can RSVP here.

Why Gas Costs What It Does

John Porretto and John Wilen of the Associated Press wrote an excellent article on why a gallon of unleaded gasoline cost what it does.

While there are many factors, the big one is as it has always been, the spot cost of crude oil (which makes up roughly 70% of the cost of gas). And, it turns out Exxon Mobil isn't the profit-gouging evil entity people make them out to be. They just happen to be one of the producers who pump a lot of oil that the market is bidding higher and higher.

Anon Guy Saves Local TV Anchor Money

When a fellow blogger, facing the bleak prospect of having to eat bean and mayonnaise sandwiches, has the courage to ask for help in saving money the Anon Guy isn't just going to stand around. No, he's going to take action because that's what a community does, because it's the moral thing to do and, well, because it's KOLO's Kendra Kostelecky.

Like others at the Reno ABC affiliate, Kostelecky has a blog. So when the Channel 8 weekend news anchor asked for a little advice, we fired off a lengthy email (which she mercifully broke down into easily-digestible comment posts).

Of course, now that Kostelecky has officially made the Dullard Mush we'll have to see if the great Koula and Kara phenomenon repeats itself. She does have the "K" thing going.

Ethanol Hype Finally Waning, We Hope

Only in the upside-down world of government bureaucracy could you have a situation where you pay one group 51-cents a gallon to grow crops for fuel (instead of, you know, to eat) all in the name of environmental goodness, yet turn around and charge another group a 54-cents a gallon penalty for wanting to bring U.S customers the very same product.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the end result. Higher food prices for everyone, more deficit spending and a willing supplier (Brazil) that can't enter the market because of this stupidity.

But, always more a product of taxpayer handouts and an archaic presidential election calendar than any actual environmental savings or reduced carbon footprint, the great purported energy savior, corn ethanol, might actually be on the ropes.

With food prices rising and more and more crop fields being planted strictly for ethanol production (not for environmental altruism mind you, but for the above-mentioned subsidy), support for this political boondoggle may finally be waning. While we'd like to say it is coming to an end, when has any government subsidy actually subsided?

If Congress is finally ready to do something about ethanol, then they need to look at what really is fleecing American taxpayers on numerous fronts -- tariffs.

For decades the government has gifted domestic sugar farmers with steep tariffs on imports that have artificially inflated the cost to U.S. consumers. And with sugar-derived ethanol being far more efficient than corn, eliminating import barriers would allow the industry to switch its prime ingredient.

And as long as we're dropping trade barriers, let's eliminate that 54-cent penalty and start importing Brazilian ethanol. If it truly is about cleaner air, lower fuel costs and lessening dependence on foreign oil (which, unfortunately, is mostly found in unstable political regions) then this really is a no-brainer.

But if it's more because one small Midwestern state is first every couple years in picking a President, then maybe this can be one more reason to dump Iowa from its perch.

The ethanol backlash:

Coalition presses Congress over ethanol -- Financial Times
Backing for ethanol boost evaporates -- The Globe and Mail
Lawmakers turn up the heat on ethanol in response to rising food prices -- L.A. Times
Rethinking Ethanol -- New York Times
Market Spotlight: Once-trendy ethanol struggles -- CNN/Money
The Many Myths of Ethanol -- John Stossel
The Clean Energy Scam -- Time
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor -- CFR

Is Reno That Hard Up For Decent Italian Food?

Craving carnitas, I decided to make my way over to La Michoacana on South Virginia and Kietzke. With 99-cent tacos and burritos weighing in at over a pound for just $3.75, it's a popular place with good reason.

So when I pulled into the strip mall, it wasn't that surprising to find it packed all the way to Big 5 at the south end. But when I went into Michi I was only third in line and the restaurant was only about a quarter full. What gives, I thought?

The answer, as I would soon find out, truly boggles the culinary mind. All those cars were there for the Olive Garden! Yes, the McDonald's of linguine had about 30 people waiting outside for seats at 4:55 p.m. on a Saturday!

Does that mean the king of Italian food in the Biggest Little City is a chain restaurant owned by the same company as Red Lobster? Are the bread sticks really that good?

Here's MAD TV's take on this culinary institution.

Obama Girl Jumps The Shark

Let's face it, Amber Lee Ettinger and Barely Political have had a pretty good run with the ubiquitous "Obama Girl" videos.

Ettinger's managed to turn her lip-syncing odes and gyrations for Barack into appearances in Maxim, FHM, SNL and even Playboy (though not the type of layout most fans were hoping for), while Barely Political went from being barely noticed to, well, something YouTubers like.

But when you end up doing a Mike Gravel video, it's safe to say the good times are officially over.

Where The Average American's Money Goes

Ever wonder what percentage of your money goes where? And how much more certain items are taking from your wallet?

Check out this nifty chart over at the Times that details almost everything, including the odd fact that spending on tomatoes are up 18% over 2007.

Another STAR Fleecing of Nevadans

That Great Nevadan corporate giveaway, otherwise know as the Sales Tax Anticipated Revenue (STAR) bond, is once again preparing to fleece taxpayers and shaft local businesses who play by the rules. And, as an added bonus this time, we have the Reno Gazette-Journal's editorial board supporting the move, albeit grudgingly, with the asinine "well, 25% of something is better than 100% of nothing" argument.

Foolish us, we always thought STAR bonds, which allow developers to keep 75% of the sales tax generated for 20 years, were originally designed for projects that actually promoted real tourism, not oversized shopping malls. But much like Cabela's managed to snooker Reno with its ludicrous claim of drawing millions of completely new visitors solely because they could now, we guess, buy a duck blind in person, Sparks is falling for the same spiel from the Legend's project.

What's so laughable about this special treatment is how little economic thought apparently goes into government's decision.

First off, the main argument (perpetuated by the RGJ's board) is that somehow every dime spent in these retail projects is newfound money. Money, and tax dollars, that wouldn't exist because, you know, there aren't any other retail stores or restaurants in town. This is the same story always put forward by sports teams whenever owners want the public to foot the bill for a new stadium. They come up with some huge economic benefit, calculated on ticket sales and surrounding expenditures, and say "See all that what we bring you."

But the dirty little secret is this is just a reallocation of money. When a family decides to spend their Friday night out at the game, it's almost always at the expense of going to the movies or a Chuck E. Cheese, this isn't new money generated by the stadium. It is just entertainment dollars spent somewhere else.

In any given population there is a finite amount of money to be spent. Adding more choices, doesn't increase the amount spent. Trust us, with personal savings in the negative, consumers aren't hoarding cash just so they can spend it at a new designer store in town. Nor will a multitude of monied Sacramento and Bay Area denizens be making a special trip to visit stores they already have. Increases in sales figures have more to do with population growth and economic conditions than choice (especially in a market this size). If those elements are positive, a company is going to move in no matter what because of the profit motive.

The other factor is just plain old fairness. Why should Cabela's, Legend's, etc. be allowed to retain sales tax for their own expenditures when it is illegal for every other business in Nevada? This is equivalent to a 5.5% price advantage for STAR projects. An advantage that, safe to say, probably isn't passed along to consumers.

How do you think small business owners like Todd and Jeanine Morgan, who have sunk everything into running Big Apple Pizza and Subs (and were featured in a Sunday RGJ article on how local restaurants are suffering), feel turning over every cent of sales tax when a huge corporation gets to use three-quarters of it for themselves? Or the Sportsman's Warehouse on Kietzke that played by the rules.

Finally, there is the other economic benefit that is always touted -- job creation. While true, there will be hundreds of new jobs with these projects, what kind are we really talking about? It's not manufacturing, skilled services or professional salaries, it's that low man on the totem pole -- retail sales. Twenty hours a week at $8.50 per isn't going to put someone in a Reno house or make a hill of beans in the region's overall economic outlook. Plus, one needs to factor in any possible job losses by like businesses unable to compete with the special STAR treatment.

Yet somehow with our roads crumbling, budgets exploding and revenues dropping the good folks in our government see fit to say goodbye to millions of sales tax dollars (which area consumers still have to pay) all so the Truckee Meadows can have another Chili's, Lane Bryant and Sunglass Station (yes, those are actual Legend's tenants). But, hey, there will be a Hot Dog Hall of Fame.

Smile, You're Subsidizing TRPA's Power Bill

It's hardly news that the average Joe tends to get the shaft while special interests get, well, special treatment. But when the average Joe has to foot the bill for someone else, who can well afford it, that's something else.

Monday's Reno Gazette-Journal was especially rich with irony on a pair of stories regarding the cost of energy. First you had a front-page article on the pinch many customers are feeling these days in making their monthly payments to Sierra Pacific. A pinch that will only get a little harder if a proposed 16% increase in electricity rates is approved.

So after sympathizing with the woes of people facing the prospect of their lights being turned off, we flipped the page and found the following gem -- Tahoe Regional Planning Agency goes green with solar energy.

And while the article is horribly written (Is the TRPA selling some of this power back on the grid or is it just supplying a portion of its own needs? And, if so, how much?), your first reaction is "good for them." Until, of course, you read the rest of the story.

You see, despite the solar panels allegedly saving the agency over half a million dollars ($540K to be exact) in the next 30 years, they aren't paying full freight on the project. Heck, they aren't even paying half the $270,000 it will cost. No, their part of the bill is just $120K. Sierra Pacific is giving the agency a whopping $150K rebate. A rebate that, naturally, you, I and the poor slobs in the first story are paying for.

And if that's not enough, the TRPA was also given a reduced, and locked in for three decades(!), rate of just 7 cents a KW instead of the 12 everybody else currently pays. (Although, in fairness, the article is so poorly constructed we can't tell if this is for all the power they use or if it is a part of the rebate, which we don't think, or whatever.)

So next time you pay your Sierra Pacific bill, if you are able, just remember that thanks to you TRPA is paying a hell of a lot less.

Do Clinton and Obama Even Know What a Gun Is?

If there's one thing we've learned this political season it is out-of-touch politicians who wouldn't know a shotgun from a revolver should just avoid talking as if they actually had a clue.

The Clinton campaign made some political hay when Barack Obama derided middle America gun owners with his "bitter" speech, and then compounded matters by saying Hillary sounded like she's carrying a six-shooter in a duck blind (which Bill Clinton gleefully pointed out isn't exactly the weapon of choice for fowl).

But, alas, Hillary's apparent advantage in the Dem gun wars disappeared with a recent mailer attacking Obama. The problem? The gun.

Thanks to a graphic genius flipping the image on the mailer, it portrays a left-handed model of a Mauser 66 rifle. But Mauser doesn't make a left-handed model. Plus, this German-made gun has a European double-trigger feature rarely used here and runs about $2,200. Not exactly an everyman's gun for hunting whitetail. As one guy noted, “I find it laughable on its face. It’s like a picture of Babe Ruth hitting right-handed.”

So apparently no one in Team Clinton had the brainpower or, apparently, the knowledge to dig up a photo of an American gun like Remington or, better yet, the iconic Winchester .30-30 lever action rifle most deer hunters cut their teeth on.