The winner of the longest post-mortem on the first debate between Gibbons and Titus is Molly Ball, who turned in her take on the fracas over at the Club for Growth Review Journal. Some high points: Ball raises the question about whether Gibbons’ supermajority requirement for passing tax raises through the state legislature is really working. But it obviously isn’t. When the intensive growth in the state required a tax raise in 2003, the Gibbons’ supermajority initiative precipitated a constitutional crisis. Gibbons should hide his head in shame for crafting the nasty thing.
Another interesting question raised in the article: isn’t Gibbons’ "education first" initiative just an attempt to fix one of the problems caused by the supermajority silliness? The answer, again, is "yes". There would be no need for the pointless fix if the supermajority requirement didn’t exist.
Over at the Sun, J. Patrick Coolican talked about the lowered expectations which helped Gibbons in the first debate–in the sense that the Gibster didn’t throw up. So, next time we should just expect more. Next time, either Gibbons starts acting like an intelligent, well-prepared, knowledgeable candidate for Governor, or he loses. Let’s see if the Gibster can meet such minimal expectations. I bet he can’t. I double dare him to try, and I double dare the MSM and the people of Nevada to hold him to it.
More post-mortems here.
And Jon Ralston had another article about the practice of bundling, the practice used by rich folk to circumvent Nevada campaign laws by funding candidates through various corporate fronts. The practice is truly grotesque, and you should be asking your Nevada Assembly and Senate candidates to reform the laws allowing it.
Recent Comments