Elizabeth Crum

Incumbent Nevada state Senator Bob Beers has filed a libel lawsuit against Allison Copening and the Nevada Democratic Party.  The complaint was filed due to political advertising that contains libelous statements claiming Beers was under “Ethics Commission review.” 

I checked it out and Beers has never been under investigation by the Nevada Ethics Commission, so if the advertising did state this, it is indeed false.  And if the Dems and Copening knew this, they did libel Beers and should be held accountable.

You can read the complaint here.

The Nevada Democrats have certainly been peddling a lot of lies and sleaze this campaign season.  Their billboard smears against Beers were called “misleading and blatantly false”  by CityLife editor and Democrat Geoff Schumacher, who is no fan of Beers.  You can read more about it here.

And if you care to learn the differences between the candidates’ policies, you can go here.

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Well, we now have proof positive that hanging out at the New York Times will muddle up anyone’s brain.  David Brooks, once a semi reliable conservative thinker, has penned a lamentation (“Revolt of the Nihilists”) so full of hand-wringing angst that, as Laura Ingraham quipped this morning, “it makes my hair hurt.”

Brooks says the failure of the “rescue package” (that’s an Obama-ism, BTW, and does nothing to endear me to the concept since I abhor victim mentalities of all kinds) means our political leaders have ”failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.”

Apparently for Brooks, defeat of this bill equals de facto anarchy in America.

Brooks then makes a few apt remarks (ok, so he has not completely lost it), but quickly disappoints again:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

No:  they showed the world that they were willing to listen to the people who elected them, the constituents in their own districts, who bombarded their offices with variations of “vote no” via email and telephone because they (we) don’t trust the “leaders,” and the “experts” at the Treasury and the Fed.  And why the heck should we, after a colossal failure of social engineering the likes of which this nation has never seen…?!

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Good freaking grief, Mr. Brooks!  These House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats who voted with them) are the ONLY people standing up for proper conservative principles, including taking a careful, pragmatic approach to complex problems rather than giving people like Paulson a blank check. 

And nobody on the right led an “anti-immigration crusade”:  they just asked the U.S. government to enforce its own laws (what nerve, ay?!)  As for your take on the ”complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds,” stick with the op-eds because a gifted psychoanalyst you’re not.  The only anxiety we’re having is over whether this bill will really fix what’s wrong, and whether anyone in D.C. is willing to do the hard work of making sure it does.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

So now we’re all just mindless sheep who totter zombie-like after Rush and Laura who are themselves out of touch with real life?  Do you have any idea how elitist and left wing that sounds?  Perhaps you’d like to come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine also so we can get a dose of “reality” and not be hypnotized by the likes of the evil Limbaugh?

I can’t quote the rest of your op-ed, because frankly, my hair hurts.  My advice to you is stop wringing your pretty little hands and give it some time.  A bill will be passed; the markets will not collapse; and all will be well, if a little dicey for a time. 

And please stop calling it a “rescue” because that’s one of the words that is turning us off out here in Sheepville.

K-Lo just posted this, from Jim DeMint’s office:

We’ve just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America’s West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.

Here is the text of Reid’s proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a “stimulus” package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.

Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:

SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.

Well, with Nevada’s state senate head count sitting at 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this campaign season is becoming increasingly unscrupulous.  The Dems want that majority so they can rule supreme in the next legislative session.  And apparently they are willing to lie, cheat, smear, and steal the victory if necessary.

Earlier this week we read about attempts to smear Senator Bob Beers via malicious and misleading bright yellow billboards.  Now the Las Vegas Sun reports that we have a flurry of expensive glossy mail pieces snowing down on District 5’s Republican state Senator Joe Heck.

The colorful mailers feature a series of vivid images of suffering cancer patients and say that Heck, a Nevada doctor, voted against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings in their basic coverage, while simultaneously accepting campaign donations from those very insurance companies.

That claim is false.

Insurance companies have been required by the state of Nevada to cover screenings for cervical cancer since 1989.

The mailers don’t include any citations (of course!) but are reported to refer to legislation from 2007. 

Heck did vote against a 2007 bill that required some insurance companies to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, which has been proven in clinical studies to be a precursor to cervical cancer…and was criticized by some for doing so, but Heck says he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage.

Interestingly, the multi-colored mailings don’t say a peep about Heck’s opponent, retired Clark County School District administrator Shirley Breeden, who had little to say about the mailers.  She told the Sun, “The tone, to me, is exactly how he voted. Times are tough and people want a change.”

The TONE [of the mailers]…is exactly how Heck voted?  What does that mean? 

Heck either voted Yes or No on this bill, and these mailers either Lie or do not Lie.  Talking about their “tone” is meaningless and has no bearing on the facts.  I am so tired of this kind of verbal sidestepping from some of these Dems as they speak loftily of the “tone,” “mood,” “feeling,” and “nuance” of issues.

These touchy-feely terms evade the stark truth and help candidates wiggle out of calling a spade a Spade:  these shiny, brightly colored mailers are lying about Heck’s voting record!! 

Shirley Breeden’s comment about how well their “tone” goes with the pitch, timbre, and tint of (this darkly dishonest campaign against) Heck should tell Nevada’s voters all they need to know about her. 

And let’s not overlook this little political tidbit:  Not only are the Dems champing at the bit to control the state Senate, they are also Quite concerned because (it is rumored that) Heck, a well respected doctor and colonel in the Army Reserve, may challenge Harry Reid in 2010.

AND Heck’s name has been thrown in the hat as a possible candidate for future governor. And in that case, he could wind up facing off against another Reid — Harry’s son Rory, current chairman of the Clark County Commission.

Is the shade, hue, and color of these Democratic paint-by-numbers smear projects starting to look like something to voters now…?

UPDATE:  A reader rightly points out that campaign seasons cannot be unscrupulous (see my first sentence).  Political seasons aren’t unprincipled, and the age is not corrupt.  It’s people who are dishonest, dodgy, and devious.

(How’s that for a headline?!)

This past Saturday I did a double take upon glimpsing a bright yellow billboard (on the corner of Ann and Durango) adorned with large radiation danger symbols and accusing Nevada State Senator Bob Beers of being “In Bed with the Southern Nevada Porn King,” a quote the billboard attributed to the LV Mercury.  I was so doubtful about the billboard’s credibility and so curious to find out the “real story,” I spent this morning doing some digging.

FACT #1:  The Bob Beers campaign team did accept a $10,000 contribution from one Raymond Pistol, owner of one of Las Vegas’ many topless bars, in Beers’ 2006 run for governor.  He returned half the contribution after losing in the primary.  According to Beers, “Suggesting that campaign contributions from a legal business (licensed by elected officials of both parties) come with “obligations” is an erroneous conclusion at best.”

FACT #2:  The Mercury, which is no longer in print, never linked Bob Beers and Raymond Pistol in any way, shape, or form.  So says Geoff Schumacher, publisher of the alternative newsweekly Las Vegas CityLife and former editor of the Las Vegas Mercury, in his LVRJ piece yesterday. 

Schumacher wrote (the following quotes are excerpts from his column), “I’m no fan of Beers’ conservative views, but as a journalist taught in the old school, I’m even less enamored of misleading and blatantly false campaign charges.

“I just so happen to have been the first and only editor of the Las Vegas Mercury during its existence from 2001 to 2005, and when I saw the billboard, I could not recall publishing an article describing Beers as being “in bed with the ‘Southern Nevada Porn King.’ “

FACT #3:  That billboard is shameful and ought to be taken down.

Here’s the opener to Jonah’s column today.  It’s a Must Read.  As usual.

The US economy — yes, that economy — grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate last quarter. This no doubt caused consternation at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, perhaps forcing some to consider a new convention film at the last minute: “Dude, Where’s My Recession?”

To hear the Democrats at their convention this week, you’d get the sense that a recession is merely a technical term for the worst human misery ever visited upon a once-great people. You’d think Americans were listening to the Democratic speeches as they huddled around their kitchen tables (if they hadn’t already been used for firewood), deciding which of their children to pack off to the orphanage and how much tree bark they can afford to eat next week. 

Last night, Barack Obama proclaimed: “Our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.” He went on to describe an America reminiscent of the Grapes of Wrath (if not Mad Max).

But this was a week-long theme. Over and over again, Democrats insisted that the “American dream” is being snuffed out, crushed, beaten, stabbed and quite possibly dismembered in President Bush’s West Wing bathtub, where Bush and Dick “The Cleaner” Cheney can dissolve the remains in sulfuric acid.  …