Party unity comes up short

Thursday, April 6, 2006 | 6:48 a.m.

Jim Gibson trades votes for campaign money. So does Dina Titus.

At least, that's what the two Democrats in the governor's race are insinuating about each other.

This is a fun and frequent Democratic game: shoot each other in the foot before running a three-legged race. In this case, though, the charges are serious and risk hurting the party's chance of winning the governorship.

Titus, the state Senate minority leader, has set up a Web site, paytoplaywithjim.com, which shows 15 votes Gibson, Henderson's mayor, cast in which a campaign contributor received some favorable treatment.

Gibson has sent out a press release with the jaunty title "Dollars to Dance With Dina" that accuses Titus of taking $35,000 from liquor distributors and trial lawyers - if only he could have included used-car salesmen - while voting in their interests.

Democratic voters will have to determine the better candidate to represent them in the November election, which will hinge on whether the winner of the primary can unify the party. But given the way the campaign has been going, that's looking increasingly difficult.

Will the loser endorse after being called corrupt?

For that matter, who would want the endorsement of someone deemed corrupt just a few weeks before?

If Democrats need any evidence that bruises inflicted in a primary campaign can hurt the winner's long-term chances, they can look back to their party's 2004 presidential primaries.

Sen. John Kerry voted against authorizing $87 billion for the war in Iraq during the Democratic primary, while fending off the attacks of anti-war candidate Howard Dean. He later uttered the infamous: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Once Kerry won the nomination, the Bush campaign hammered Kerry with that line relentlessly.

Despite such cautions, Nevada Democrats are sanguine about intramural differences, arguing that they are signs of a more diverse party with more diverse views.

"Our ideas aren't manufactured by some Republican political consultant think tank," said Billy Vassiliadis, Democratic consultant and head of R&R Partners. "We debate fiercely, but at the end of the day we're gonna be better for it." He's confident the party can unify after the election, although he conceded with each new round of attacks, it gets harder.

Given Republican dominance in Nevada - Sen. Harry Reid is the only statewide Democratic officeholder - others are less sure that a bang-away primary is in the Democrats' best interest.

"It's shortsighted, and it doesn't set up well for what comes next" said David Damore, a UNLV political scientist who follows Nevada politics closely. He also noted that the Democratic attacks provide opportunities for Republicans in November. The ad is easy to envision: "Even Democrat Mayor Jim Gibson says Dina Titus traded votes for money," or vice versa.

With that in mind, a party elder said the Democratic candidates need to think about November.

"They need to keep their eyes on the prize, which is winning the general election," former Sen. Richard Bryan said. He and other prominent Democrats, including Reid and former Gov. Bob Miller, sent an open letter last year calling for a civil campaign that would lead to an eventual Democratic victory.

Nevertheless, the state Democratic Party has no interest in telling Titus or Gibson to cool it, a spokeswoman said. "That's not a conversation we've had. Democratic candidates are differentiating from each other, and that's natural," Kirsten Searer said.

That stands in contrast to Paul Adams, chairman of the state Republican Party. He said he's personally intervened on occasion, telling Republican candidates to stick to issues and not get personal.

"Usually there's more discipline on the Republican side," Damore said. Republicans tend to line up their candidates while dissuading the undesirables from running.

Republicans often invoke what President Ronald Reagan called his 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans."

That became a tougher task for Nevada Republicans, however, after a recent April Fools' joke caused a minor uproar among two of the party's candidates for governor, state Sen. Bob Beers and Rep. Jim Gibbons.

The Beers campaign created an e-mail account, borrowed Gibbons' campaign logo and sent out a phony press release that appeared to have come from Gibbons' campaign manager, Robert Uithoven.

The release said Gibbons had switched his position on the Tax and Spending Control amendment, which would limit government spending. Beers has championed TASC; Gibbons opposes it.

At the bottom of the release, which used fake quotes to depict Gibbons as bumbling, the Beers campaign disclosed that it was "Paid for by the Committee to Elect Bob Beers."

A Reno TV station reported the joke as fact over the weekend.

Tuesday, a Gibbons campaign lawyer sent a letter to Beers asking for an apology and correction. Note that Gibbons himself still managed to live by Reagan's 11th commandment, using a lawyer to speak for him.

Beers, the insurgent challenger to the front-runner Gibbons, has disregarded Reagan's commandment.

He released a statement saying the following: "Congressman Gibbons' response to our April Fools' Day press release demonstrates that he lacks the maturity and the judgment - not to mention knowledge of the Bill of Rights - to be governor."