18 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, May 26, 2009 | 9:05 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, May 26, 2009 | 9:05 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Greetings, Early Liners, on a morning when so many eyes are on Las Vegas for the president’s visit. And what do they see?
A governor who refuses to greet the commander-in-chief on the tarmac. A mayor hopeful for an apology. And the state’s top senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a brutal re-election fight against no one in particular.
Yet if ever there was a time for policy to trump politics, this might be it.
Nevada’s steadily climbing unemployment rate is 10.4 percent. The state’s budget is being slashed. Homeowners continue losing their houses at such a pace that Southern Nevada can’t seem to shake its standing among the foreclosure capitals of the nation.
The president is touching down to a fundraiser for Reid, who brazenly told the New York Times in today’s editions he expects to raise $25 million for his 2010 re-election battle.
No candidate has officially announced a campaign against Reid. Reid told the NYT (and Sun colleague Jon Ralston aptly noted):
“There were a couple of people talking about running against me last year,” he said. “We beat them. They’re gone.”
But that hasn’t stopped Reid from running what his aides call an "aggressive" campaign, or a conservative group from planning to protest his re-election tonight outside Caesars. Former Republican Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, who is exploring a run, will have a meet-and-greet this morning in Las Vegas.
By the time Bette Midler, Sheryl Crow and the other superstars fill up the stage at Caesars Palace tonight, Reid may be well on his way to that fundraising goal. He already has $7 million on hand.
What has been missing from the many analyses of Reid’s re-election chances is the fact that this is May 2009, not 2010.
Reid’s poll numbers are low – about as bad as they were last fall in another survey. That’s a problem. Yet there is time to turn that around. There is also time for a Republican candidate to emerge.
After all, when John Thune beat then-majority leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota in 2004, the Republican didn’t enter the race until January of that year.
Nevadans still look favorably on Obama, who was elected by a 12 percentage point margin in 2008 – greater than any Democrat since Franklin Delanor Roosevelt.
Even in the historic swing state of Nevada, with its fierce independent streak, Obama remains popular -- he polls about three times higher than the Republican governor.
After tonight’s star-studded fundraiser for Reid, Obama will head to Nellis Air Force Base on Wednesday morning to discuss the economic recovery program in Nevada.
Perhaps then politics will make way for policy.
Nevada could use the attention.
Why are the only items in the Sun that do NOT allow comments the ones from Brian Greenspan? Today he comments on the President's visit but wants no comments on how the rest of us fee. He seems to have plenty of far left opinions but will tolerate no dissent from the readers.
Neiman, you can blame that on me, not Brian Greenspun. My name is Rob Curley, and I help run lasvegassun.com.
Our policy on reader comments is pretty straightforward. The biggest point in the policy, at least in my opinion, is "not to use this forum for personal attacks" on other readers, others in the community or even the journalists who create our stories and columns.
We used to allow comments on Brian Greenspun's columns, but people's comments always seemed to denigrate to name-calling and nastiness.
And deleting all of those comments made it look like Brian Greenspun was doing it, which he wasn't. Our site's editors were deleting the comments on his columns that violated our site's user agreement. There were almost always more comments that violated the agreement than there were comments that followed the guidelines.
If the comments would truly be a discussion, we'd turn them back on in a second.
Brian Greenspun asks us all of the time why we don't turn the comments back on for his columns, and we basically say what I just wrote for you. He truly wants the discussion to be there and thinks we're being wimps.
:)
And, BTW, Brian Greenspun's columns aren't the only items we disable the comments on. Whenever a story becomes full of comments that are no longer a discussion, but are name-calling nastiness and in that spirit, we turn them off.
You will often see us do this on a story where someone has died because of the insensitivity of many of the posts.
So, don't blame Brian Greenspun for the disabled comments on his columns. I made that decision, not him. And now both of you are ticked off at me.
:)
I just have to say it: Why doesn't Mr. Greenspun "get a clue" if there is so much dissent (and I use the term lightly) to what he says? :)
Rob, thank you for the clarification. Would it make sense to post the policy decision on Mr. Greenspun's columns? Also, when you find it necessary to delete/lock all posts on an article/column it would be good of you to replace them with a single post saying why it was done in more detail than just saying "policy".
Welcome Mr. President!!!
So even though a few posters resort to name-calling, there is no room for polite disagreement with Mr. Greenspun's opinion? Sounds like a cop-out to me.....
I can tell you that the posts that originally made us decide to disable the comments on Brian Greenspun's columns were rarely against his thoughts or points. They were mostly just name-calling.
If it were just well-worded dissenting opinions, the comments would be back on his columns in a second. We're all for people having discussions.
boftx, your suggestion seems valid, especially for the random story where comments have been disabled.
The thing is, it seems like many readers think we don't read the comments or they're just posting into a vast cyberspace. We do read the comments, and we do read the e-mails that are sent to us, and we try to respond whenever possible.
You'll note that especially on the sports and entertainment stories on lasvegassun.com, the actual writers will often respond to reader comments. To us, dialogue means a two-way discussion.
As it says to the right of the box where you can submit comments:
"Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. "
And to us, "elevated" doesn't mean you have to agree with our columnists, even the columnists who own this newspaper.
:)
To us, "elevated" means you're responding intelligently and asking pertinent/thoughtful questions that further the discussion.
Thanks!
rob
Thanks for the explanation.
Is it possible for us to disable Greenspun's comments?
Now, back to the discussion at hand - Acting President Obama is coming to support Reid. By the way, we taxpayers are paying for the trip. I think that's fair, don't you?
A quote from Lisa Mascaro above - "Reid's poll numbers are low -- about as bad as they were last fall in another survey. That's a problem."
No, to me it sounds more like a solution.
larry5 -- what's great about the online version of a newspaper is that reading every story is completely opt-in; you make the choice to read or view something on a news site by clicking on the link.
My promise to you is that we will always clearly mark all of Brian Greenspun's columns as columns by him.
And then you can know to steer clear.
:)
rob
Harry Reid needs 25 million dollars plus what ever else he collects to win re-election to a 5th term in the US Senate in a small state like Nevada where 80% of the population lives in Clark County. What is he going to do mail everybody a stimulus check 1 week before the election. WHAT A JOKE THIS MAN HAS BECOME
sheckyvegas - You might want to re-read your post. Do you think Acting President Obama actually thought through the comment he made about Las Vegas? I don't.
And you think it's OK for him to tell others not to come to Vegas because they were getting bailout funds, but he can come here to support a party member totally on your dime?
It's not OK with me.
shecky, you should welcome your tax dollars being spent here like that, (y)our Sen. Reid sure isn't doing anything to get them here.
As for Obama coming to town, that looks like a double-standard to me. He's coming here for a fund-rasier on our dime! (Although again, that's about the only way we might get some tax dollars back if his staffs plays a little.) Granted, he is also going to appear for a brief speech at Nellis, but every businessman knows how to write off a 3-martini lunch as a business expense.
As is all too often the case of late, I call "Bulls**t"!
Hmmm. You want to respond to Brian Greenspun, Editor?
You know they have this thing... it's called a "Letter to the Editor." You could always try that route.
Thanks Rob. I'm sure you knew my question about disabling Greenspun's comments was tongue-in-cheek.
Beyond my ability to opt-out, I believe since it's your paper, you can print absolutely whatever you want. Unfortunately if the liberal thinking prevails much further you may not have that option for long.
At the moment I am unhappy with both parties. The questions I have is why does it take $25,000,000 to win a senate election? Why is it that a candidate with a good solid message will lose to an incumbent who can raise an obscene amount of money? The answer is that the system has been refined and tweaked by those in power, to give them the edge in keeping power. After all that what is really important in Washington DC.
Now, if the president is going to travel around in Air Force One to raise campaign funds, with all the security that is involved, and this goes for the current president or a future Republican president, at tremendous taxpayer cost, the DNC or RNC should reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the trip. This country has got to go on a budget and quit spending money like there is an endless supply of it.
Obama is supposed to be tending to the Country - he shouldn't be hitting the campaign trail for ANY candidate - Dem or Repub. alike. He needs to get back to Washington and do the job us taxpayers are stuck paying him to do but instead he's foxtrotting the globe? When will the good citizens of this Country finally get fed enough with all these rich ego-maniacs who insist on controlling our country to take some serious action towards change? Of course Mr/Mrs Average Citizen don't stand a chance - who but the richest in this country can afford to get themselves elected to run it?
If there were some kind of better limits put on campaigning costs then maybe someone other than a rich person or a good friend of multiple rich people could aspire to becoming a part of the solution.........as long as only the rich can afford to govern this country the middle class American doesn't stand a snowballs' chance in hell.
there is nothing more funny than a rich liberal, like mr. greenspun, that preaches to people, yet pays his own employess near poverty wages and partners with a casino company that sends jobs overseas.
vote with your dollars, folks. never put a dime in a slot machine at green valley ranch.