Daily Glean: Who should pay?

• Las Vegas town drunk Oscar Goodman, who also serves as mayor, slips the noose on a long-running ethics charge and promptly ramps up the speculation about a possible U.S. Senate campaign: "In my consideration of my political future, this weighed heavily," Goodman says (LVRJ). Yes, now that this complicated affair of using his position to assist his son's business is behind him, there is absolutely nothing else in Goodman's performance as mayor or his professional history that could conceivably be used in an attack ad against him. Have we mentioned that we're not altogether convinced Goodman could beat Jack Carter in a Democratic primary. Well, we're not altogether convinced. We suspect, however, that Goodman's narcissistic dithering might be hindering Carter's fundraising, as donors wait to see which way the world's most media-thirsty mayor jumps. So what'll it be, Otis? In or out?
• One great big newspaper's "specific benchmark" is another great big newspaper's "loose goal." Post leads Bush speech story saying he "vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year. setting a specific benchmark..." NYTimes, at end of its story, says Bush "set a loose goal of training enough Iraqi police and soldiers to control a majority of Iraq's territory by the end of this year. The target could be misleading, however, because the sectarian violence is concentrated in small but strategically crucial parts of the country." However it's sliced, sounds like Bush is softening us up for that day when he finally and publicly unveils his noble Iraq exit strategy: Cut. And Run.
  • With a so-called conservative like William F. Buckley suggesting it's time Bush acknowledge defeat, perhaps it's also time for a blindly loyal Bush apologist like Sen. John Ensign to step up and help explain how swimmingly things are going in Iraq, as Ensign did the last time Bush was bottoming out in the polls late last year.
• Feingold's resolution to censure Bush is herded to the Judiciary Committee, which means Harry Reid and the rest of the courageous Senate Democrats who are working tirelessly to protect and defend mainstream American values will probably never have to talk about it ever again. AP
• Fightin' George Chanos, Nevada's never-elected-and-never-will-be attorney general, will ask the donor class that forked over $1.2 million to him to turn around and give it to the Republican candidate of Chanos' choosing (LVRJ). We're not privy to the decisions of big-time GOP campaign contributors, but we've got a hunch that if and when the candidate Chanos supports gets any of that money, it will be despite Chanos' stamp of approval, not because of it.
• "Growth: Who should pay?' reads a headline in the Las Vegas Sunsert. The story reviews what appears to be a growing movement among local governments 'round here to jack up the impact fees on developers, which are among the lowest in the nation. About time, we say. But whatever happened to the notion of making the gambling industry pay for everything? It's time for Nevada to return to its traditional values.
• A real estate developer named Bob Unger, reportedly a Democrat, will run for lieutenant governor. Damned if we know. Maybe he's just ready to retire. AP

Comments

[Sr. Bojangles]

That Chanos, what nerve!
He calls Buckley a bad lawyer on television and gets all mad and yelling over the one issue he tackled in his tenure and then bows out because he doesn't have the stomach for politics?!!! Yowza! I thought George Bush lived in a bubble.

[Not Bob]

Re: Oscar for Senate. I share Gleaner's skepticism about Hizzoner's potential to defeat Ensign and to serve effectively in the Senate. However, you're really kidding yourself if you think that an incumbent mayor with established name ID (and good ratings for local tv news) and the power to make rain and sunshine for all those developers, lawyers and girlie-bar owners isn't going to blow past Jack Carter in terms of fundraising, earned media and evntually votes, then you really are spending too much time in the liberal blogger lounge.

[Not Bob]

Then again, if you know how to use a conditional if/then construction properly, you are leagues ahead of me.

[Diogenes]

When you're the Bombay shark in the local pond do you want to become the Ripple minnow in the ocean? I bet not!

[Factotum]

C'mon....like him or not, Oscar definitely has name ID. I want to see some polls indicating how Jack Carter fares. Nobody knows who he is because he hasn't done anything in Nevada. I still believe he doesn't stand a chance, regardless of whether or not he has a primary.

[lucca1492]

I'm sure that Jack Carter is a great guy, but he might as well be named John Doe, because the average voter could care less when compared to Oscar.

You need to get off of the Oxycontin if you think that Oscar could not win against Jack Carter.

I respect Oscar because he doesn't give a crap about what others think. Reason is that he doesn't have to. That's what we need in the Senate - more people that will tell it like it is, rather than cowering to all the Bush cronies. I bet if Oscar was in the Senate presently, He would already be calling for an impeachment despite popular opinion. I'm a military Veteran and several soldiers from my previous unit (187th Rakassans) died in this joke of a war. For the life of me I cannot fathom how they can start impeachment proceedings based off of sexual relations, but have not with a president who's lies have cost our country thousands of lives. That is why we need more people like Oscar in the Senate!!

I also wish that Mayor Gibson was running for Senate - Oh well maybe after he has spent some time as Governor. We need more people out there pushing stem cell research on the Federal level.

Oscar Rocks !!

[lucca1492]

One more thing, Jimmy Carter is not one of the most popular president's. Record high inflation comes to mind and probably the worst run Presidential term in the history of this nation. Now if Jack Carter was really named Jack Clinton, then I might agree with your assumptions about his political clout.

[lucca1492]

Oh yah Harry Reid - Your "AWESOME" as well.
Gratz on becoming the Senate Minority Leader.
I'm looking forward to you becoming the Majority leader soon - hopefully next election cycle.

[who]

lucca1492,
Carter not responsible for "record" high inflation. He was elected after a protacted war in which LBJ undereported the wars true cost (just like current admin with Iraq's true costs).
In 1972 Nixon hoping for a landslide put pressure on Fed Chair Arthur Burns for a looser monetary policy which in turn pumped millions of dollars into the economy in time for Nixon's re-election. Cheap $ makes voters happy.
In 1977, when Carter was president, Burns was up for reappointment as Fed Chairman. Shortly after the 1976 election the Discount rate was cut and money accelerated smartly. Burns hoped that another round of an easy-money policy, which would run through 1977, would enamour him with Carter and get him reappointed. It didn't and many blamed Burns' successor, G.William Miller and Carter for the double digit inflation. Cheap $ can get you inflation.

In 1981, under pressure from Reagan, now Federal Reserve Chairman Volker, decided to change policy from Keynesian liberal philosophy to a more conservative monetarist philosophy and tightened money supply with high interest rates. The interest rates of the 1980's was precedent to the loose money from the 70's (and Reagan's record deficit-wait! 2007 going to be same as 1981?).
A reasonable review of history will not indite (sp) Carter as the "worst run Presidential term in the history of this nation." In recent history that title belongs to only one man; Nixon.

Remember Nixon had to impose wage and price controls to slow down the economy. In 1973 CPI was 8.8% and after the OPEC oil issue in 1974 CPI was 12.2%

Record high oil prices of the 1970's added inflationary issues into the economy. Oil currently is a smaller portion of the GDP than in the 70's so the inflationary aspect is not as great, but it is still 1/3 of the curent 3.7% CPI.

Carter tried to get our people out of Iran, but Reagan back-doored him, as Nixon did to LBJ's Peace Initiative prior to the 1968 election. Both offered a better deal to the "bad guys" in order to discourage dealing with the incumbent.

What Reagan did with Iran (Iran Contra Scandal), is with us today. Iran has been in a covert war with US (Beirut barracks...) since Reagan in office and he didn't take them out. His fault.

There is a lot more. Read "Secrets of the Temple; How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider for a lot more behind the scenes in US economics. I have loosly quoted him above.

[lucca1492]

I'm a young guy I'll admit and your obviously more versed in the specifics of that time period, but from a voter opinion that administration was a disaster. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that it was entirely his fault, but in the average voters mind the time of his administration was a horrible time for this nation. Also yes Nixon's corruption caused much of the private sector legistlation for consumer protection. I would agree with you that Nixon's presidency was a total disaster and probably had a large effect upon the ability for Carter to effectively manage from an executive sense.

I'll agree Nixon was a disaster. I also do not feel that there were no good things that came about from Carter. During all these years after the end of his presidency he has tried to do a lot of good all over the world. I respect him for that! I also do not feel that his son is liable to make the same mistakes. I was only stating that from a political perspective many people do not think kind thoughts about the Carter administration whatever the reasons.

As far as Oscar is concerned, I will be voting for him just because I know him as a mayor and I feel he is genuinely concerned and loves this great state, Nevada. I'm not saying that Carter doesn't either, but I also haven't seen him in action and effecting any change thus far in our state. I don't always agree with Oscar but I'm supporting him if and when he runs. You have to admit that from a political view he commands the votes of large portion of Southern Nevada. There is a reason for that. I sincerely believe that him running for Senate is not brought upon by his own desires rather for the effective change that he can bring as a U.S. Senator.

[ps]

AAhhh,
To be Oscar's $on.

[lucca1492]

haha - I'm flattered :P

I read that article of Oscar sitting on the fence about whether to run for the U.S. Senate or not - I sure hope he does run. I understand though why he may not want to - Vegas is a fun town. I bet there isn't a cooler place in the country to be Mayor. If he becomes a Senator he'll be living in Northern Nevada right? Let me think - hum - Vegas or Carson City? That is reason enough to not run, but I still want to see him run even if it means that he'll be spending more time up North.

I ran into him once while I was going to eat at a buffet. He was about ready to speak in front of a bunch of people, but took almost 10 minutes to chit chat with me a nobody about education, military, advice about life and other stuff. I'm a nobody and I genuinely felt like this guy really cares about this City and State. This was not a political rally, nor a photo op, but rather an informal conversation about nothing. He probably would have kept speaking with me if he wasn't running late for the speach. This is indicative of why he connects with people from my perspective. Republican or Democrat the majority of citizens like the guy.I know tons of republicans that think highly of him as well as democrats.

I don't agree with all of his positions, but I would like to see him run for the Senate not because of one simple conversation, but because he really seems to care about our community and this state.