Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Ensign may be in fix

Friday, Sept. 8, 2000 | 9:36 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is the editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Just when John Ensign should have thought it was safe to make plans for Washington, D.C., he had to open up his mouth.

One of the absolutes of political campaigning is when you are a front-runner and you know it, play it safe. You can only go down from favorite status. John violated this most basic of rules last week and whether it comes back to haunt him at the general election and beyond is anybody's guess. It may be just a blip on the radar or it could spell a huge upset in the making.

Ever since John announced he was filing for the seat from which the very popular Sen. Richard Bryan was retiring, the odds have favored the one-time congressman. After all, he had just run a very close race against Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, and enjoyed all the benefits that come from such a hotly contested race. His Democratic challenger, Ed Bernstein, while formidable in his own right, has been outmatched in the all-important money category, which has kept him at arm's length in the polling numbers.

One thing Bernstein has done during the summer is close an incredibly large gap -- something the experts said couldn't happen -- because of his positions on many issues important to Nevada families. It seems that he has taken the case to the people and, in most instances, come out ahead with those who have paid attention. Ed's challenge, of course, is to get the dollars needed to spread his message statewide. It is not improbable to believe that this race could close by Election Day with the outcome unclear. For that to happen, though, Ed would need a bit of luck to go with a larger campaign chest.

Enter John Ensign. There is no question that the one big issue that separates Nevadans from the rest of our fellow citizens elsewhere in the nation is nuclear waste. Which candidate will better serve us in the United States Senate is and will be a major point of contention between the candidates, which I suspect by Election Day will be sorted out by the voters. Both candidates are opposed to the dump, which is no surprise. Which one can be most effective in helping Harry Reid stop the nuclear power industry's juggernaut is what the voters will have to decide.

There are other issues, however, that Nevadans are every bit as concerned about as their neighbors to the north, south, east and west. One of them just happens to be the constitutional right to privacy, better known in this instance as the right of a woman to choose. Or in a much broader sense, the constitutional right of every citizen to have a zone of privacy into which the government cannot enter without our permission. The debate over abortion is just one facet of the argument to determine just how far our government will be allowed to invade our most private decisions. But it is a big one.

In Nevada most citizens have grown up with or brought to the Silver State a belief in the rights of the individual and a cautious concern about the encroachment of government -- at every level -- into our private lives. Polling has remained consistent through the years in upholding the individual's right to privacy against government meddling. Abortion and a woman's right to reproductive choice have consistently scored high numbers when the voters have been questioned. It is interesting to note, though, that in most major elections in Nevada during the past decade or two, choice has not been a contested issue because the candidates have usually been on the same side of the debate.

Not so this year. There is an absolute and unequivocal difference between John Ensign and Ed Bernstein on the matter of choice. And if there was any confusion in that regard, John stepped out front and center and fell flat on his face trying to explain what those differences were. And in doing so, he just may have given the challenger the road map to a victory that until this week seemed unlikely.

Now I know that Nevadans, like most voters, are not single-issue people. But there are some issues to which citizens give greater weight in making up their minds. I suspect that choice is one of them. And I suspect that the Bernstein camp will be doing what it can to make sure the voters know just where the candidates stand.

Here's a preview of what I think we'll be hearing. When John was questioned about his stand on the funding of abortions for low-income women who were raped or victimized by incest -- much like government funding for any other health issue -- he initially said that he didn't believe women should be helped by government for the "bad choices" they made. He immediately claimed he was misquoted -- who wouldn't with such a ridiculous and insensitive remark like that on the record --- and clarified his remarks by saying the rapist made the "bad choice."

But, he countered, we shouldn't compound one mistake with a worse one by funding an abortion for the victim. John has also supported a constitutional ban on abortion and commented that Roe vs. Wade is the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. No problem. I commend Ensign for standing up for what he believes. The problem, though, is that what he believes is so far to the right of most Americans' political thought on this subject that he has painted himself into a corner from which he may not be able to extricate himself.

There are plenty of days left in this campaign for the voters to hear all they want on the issue of government intervention into our private lives. Bernstein, I imagine, will do all he can to make sure every voter knows where he stands. I am not sure, though, what John will do in the face of such an onslaught. He can't be any clearer -- about punishing a victim for someone else's bad choices or refusing the funds needed by a poor person to mitigate the ravages of rape or incest -- and that may be his undoing.

It is, though, far too late to do what he should have done. And that is keep his mouth shut. Now he will have to keep talking while he tries to answer some very hard questions by Nevadans who overwhelmingly support the right of a woman to choose.