And that made the coincidence all the more notable.
The lead story on the Review-Journal’s local news section Aug. 17 -- 36 hours after the polls closed on Nevada’s Aug. 15 Nevada primary -- was a news analysis on the pending gubernatorial race between Northern Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons (who brags about extorting an airline job by threatening to increase the state tax on jet fuel) and double-dipping state Sen./state university Professor Dina Titus.
“Candidates agree: They’re different,” announced the six-column headline.
At least it was attributed.
The lead story that morning in the eight-page Review-Journal insert which is all that remains of the once potent Las Vegas Sun? “Could they be any more different? Voters will have an unprecedented choice for governor.”
Hey, it was sure enough to get ME all fired up for a repeat trip to the polls come November. I mean, in a day and age when it can start to seem like we get exactly the same kind of intrusive, high-tax nanny state no matter who we vote for -- here, finally, we have a clear choice.
The Republicrat is a man, baby, as the Sun’s committee effort pointed out in their second paragraph (the Review-Journal seemed to assume we could tell from the photos.) And the Demopublican is ... a woman! And there are lots of other differences, too!
The one that will reduce the overall size of Nevada government, and the total amount all government entities will loot from my earnings and yours over the next four to eight years (when compared to the past four to eight years) is ... well, OK, neither of them will do that. Actually, neither Mr. Titus nor Miss Gibbons would even support the very modest Tax And Spending Control initiative -- not that we have to worry about THAT any more, now that their seven fellow big-government cronies on the Country’s Crookedest Court found a one-word technical error and threw that onerous measure off the ballot a week ago.
(“Ohhhh. The children want to tell their betters how to run things? How much we can spend; whether property rights are ‘fundamental’; whether ‘senior judges’ like our beloved Deborah Agosti who serve forever even though they could never win re-election shall be allowed to rubber-stamp the stealing of your land for dimes on the dollar; whether the courts should have to publish decisions that we’d rather keep secret? How cute! How absolutely darling! Now children, go back to your student council meeting and decide something important, like what color crepe paper to use to decorate the gym for the big dance.”)
But hey, between Dina Gibbons and Jim Titus, the one that can be counted on to repeal the state’s gun control laws, restoring our God-given (and 14th-Amendment-guaranteed) right to keep and bear any firearm without the “infringement” of a single tax, fee, or “permit” -- well, OK, neither of them would do that. But the one who would at least repeal the $15 “background check” fee, which they could easily do just by letting the FBI handle the checks for free, instead of turning it into a profit center for Nevada’s “lines-are-all-busy, please-hold” state police -- is?
Gee whiz. Neither of them?
Well, OK, but which one of our only two remaining gubernatorial candidates has endorsed the re-legalization of all medicinal plants for adults, restoring the right all Americans had before 1916 to decide what to put into their own bodies, ending the “War on Drugs” and with it the biggest excuse for our burgeoning bust-down-the-door police state?
Hold on a second. Neither of them? Not even the modest current move to legalize a single ounce of pot for adults?
Which will close down the bulk of the counterproductive and vastly wasteful government-monopoly youth propaganda camps, cutting us back to the single six-month school in each county (with admission presumably by competitive exam) which is all that’s authorized for public funding in the state Constitution, cutting taxes by half and freeing parents to arrange their own kids’ education -- confident that the Country’s Crookedest Court, with their newfound allegiance to “strict adherence” to every word in the Constitution, would embrace such a change with enthusiasm?
Um, hold on here. This can’t be right. Neither of them?
Tax credits for home schoolers? Neither Congressman Titus nor Professor Gibbons wants that. Wouldn’t be prudent. Might start a stampede.
Promote legislation requiring all Nevada judges to inform juries of “the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge” (U.S. vs. Moylan, 1969) and that “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions from the judge” (U.S. vs. Dougherty, 1972)?
Oh dear. Neither of them?
Which is opposed to driving up government wages through collective bargaining for state workers?
What? Both FAVOR that?
Filing suit at the U.S. Supreme Court to directly challenge the claim of the central government to “own” or “control” 92 percent of the Silver State (including Yucca Mountain), given that they can show no bills of sale for any such land “purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the state in which the same shall be,” as stipulated in Article I Section 8, the only method through which the federals are authorized to own any land within the states?
Mandatory all-day tax-funded kindergarten, ripping babies away from their parents’ influence at the age of five?
Titus wants it now; Gibbons says he’ll ... OK it after he’s seen some studies.
Rounding up all the illegal aliens who place such a burden on our schools and hospitals, loading them onto buses, hauling them to Long Beach, loading them onto landing craft, giving them a slow cruise to Acapulco, dumping them on the beach -- and informing the scofflaws in Washington City that we’ll gladly turn this function back to them as soon as they show any renewed enthusiasm for getting it done?
But they’re so radically DIFFERENT, darn it. I KNOW they are. Why, one wears pants, and the other wears ... slacks. When it comes to the really important stuff, they’re so DIFFERENT!
Give it up, girls.
If you want to run a piece with that headline, here’s some advice. On one side of the page draw a suit with two heads coming out of the same collar: Titons and Gibbus. Because no matter which one you vote for, this big-spending nanny state will raise your taxes just like Sig and Billy and Danny and Terry want them to, and for good measure give the cops the power to pull you over and arrest you for the newly minted “primary offense” of not wearing your seat belt.
On the other side of the page, draw Independent American gubernatorial candidate Christopher Hansen, who would differ with our two-headed beast on at least as many of the above issues as he would agree. (I’d add the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, but there’s isn’t one this year. I’d urge you to write in Joe Silvestri, anyway, but they won’t let you.)
Of course, to illustrate the story that way, the Ladies of the Left would have to admit there are parties out there that would actually deliver us much LOWER taxes, and a return to the limited-government constitutional principles of our founding fathers.
And that would be SO inconvenient.
Instead, just keep repeating: “There are only two remaining candidates for governor. That loud man outside, banging on the locked door to the TV debate, is a figment of your imagination. Only two candidates, only two, and goodness, they’re so DIFFERENT! ...”