Jon Ralston notes our caucus is off a major pundit’s political calendar

Friday, Oct. 19, 2007 | 7:35 a.m.

Some end-of-the-week revelations, observations and perturbations, all pithy and culled from sources near and far:

The Nevada caucus now officially does not exist. And the unkindest cut of all was administered by my fellow Buffalonian Tim Russert during an exchange with "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams this week.

On Wednesday, Russert visited Williams to, as the anchor told us, "attempt to explain the political calendar." This ought to be humorous, I figured, as my almost-as-successful-as-I-am Buffalo brother echoed what I have been saying for months about how "chaotic" and "crazy" all the early-state maneuvering is.

Russert started with the Republicans and pulled out a handy dandy graphic that showed January with dates filled in with state abbreviations for their caucus or primary. Russert went through the schedule - Iowa, New Hampshire, then Michigan, South Carolina and Florida.

But something was missing - li'l ol' us. I rewound the tape and looked again. Yes, indeed. Nevada was not even listed.

On to the Democrats. "Here's the calendar," Russert declared, as the nifty January graphic reappeared. Iowa Democrats on the fifth or 14th, New Hampshire may go to December and then South Carolina and Florida.

There it was again. Or, there we weren't.

Et tu , Russert? I expect this kind of condescension from David Yepsen, the Iowa pundit. But for the king of TV political journalists (nationally, at least) to not even meet us and to press us into oblivion? Oh, the pain.

And then Williams rubbed salt in the wound with his kicker: "I think we should Xerox your scorecard and hand it out to everybody."

It was fun while it lasted, folks. But thanks to Russert, we have not just faded; we are invisible.

The two extremes have been banal - Democrats crying "heartless" and Republicans wailing "socialized medicine." I have long since given up on shame entering any of these debates.

Some of the opposition has been principled from Republicans who wondered whether the SCHIP expansion should have been more modest. Fine.

But how did we get two Republicans who stretched so much to explain their votes that one flip-flopped and the other either didn't read the bill or simply didn't get it?

Check out this section of a piece penned this week by the Reno Gazette-Journal's Anjeanette Damon about the positions of Nevada's two GOP congressmen:

"Heller said the legislation would open Nevada's program to illegal immigrants, a claim Porter said is wrong.

"Illegal immigrants are not covered," said Porter, one of 45 Republicans to support the bill. "I'm not convinced their arguments are correct."

"The bill explicitly prohibits coverage of illegal immigrants and requires states to obtain Social Security numbers or other proof of residency from applicants. To be eligible for the program, applicants must have lived in the state five years."

Does anyone believe Heller voted against this measure because he thought it would allow illegals to gain government benefits? It would be patently unfair to conclude this is just part of his transformation from a moderate out of place in conservative, illegal -immigration-obsessed Congressional District 2 to doctrinaire conservative soon to be beloved in rural Nevada. Patently unfair.

And does anyone believe Porter initially opposed the measure because of provisions he claimed would gut Medicare? It would be so patently unfair to conclude this is simply part of his transformation from a doctrinaire conservative totally aligned with the administration on major issues to a moderate soon to be beloved in Henderson. Patently unfair.

How did we get the only two GOP congressmen who had to concoct reasons other than fiscal responsibility for their votes?

"After his remarks, a 'star-struck' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shook the Dalai Lama's hand, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, 'bypassing the guy standing to the Dalai Lama's right.' "

Who was that guy on the right Reid ignored?

President Bush.