Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleThe overreaction that won’t go away
Friday, July 31, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
Nearly six months after President Barack Obama made a perfectly reasonable statement in the middle of nowhere about potential misuse of bailout money, Nevada elected officials of both parties continue to overreact and generally make fools of themselves.
The congressional delegation has been burning up the word processors for months with ludicrous news releases defending Las Vegas’ honor (now there’s a phrase) and now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the most powerful elected official in the state’s history, has used his high office to propose — wait for it — the “Protecting Resort Cities from Discrimination Act of 2009.”
If that’s not silly enough for you, our blustering mayor, ever eager to put his own interests over the city’s, has been matched only by our blustering Man Formerly Known as Governor, who saw an opportunity to get the Obama-haters riled up.
I shudder to think what Mark Twain might have said if he were around or what P.J. O’Rourke might say if he knew about this misuse of time and money. And over what?
In February, in Elkhart, Ind., at a town-hall meeting defending his stimulus plan, Obama said “you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.” That is, companies shouldn’t take bailout money and then use it to pay for travel.
How controversial. How incendiary. What was he thinking?
I still hear intelligent people say, “But he didn’t have to single out Las Vegas.” But that was a compliment to the Convention and Visitors Authority’s ability to make the city the most recognizable tourist destination in the world. Does anyone actually believe — I mean really believe — that Obama meant to single out Las Vegas because he wanted to hurt the city or somehow doesn’t like it here because of its reputation for sin and debauchery, a kind of C Street West?
Please.
Obama, ever-professorial and above the fray, apparently was astounded that anyone could have misconstrued his comments when he was approached shortly after the event by his confidante, Valerie Jarrett. As The New York Times reported Sunday, “Obama was dismissive. His comments, he said to Jarrett, were not directed at ordinary business travelers but rather at companies that were bailed out at taxpayers’ expense.”
Of course. But it wasn’t enough, after Jarrett prodded him, that Obama had his spokesman clarify his intent a few days later, or that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel provided subsequent assurances.
This was an opportunity for most of the delegation to take a break from the substance of fixing the economy and tackling health care reform and spend some time on frivolously showing voters they care about their home turf. (Not sure where Rep. Dean Heller was in all of this opportunism, especially if he wants to run statewide. Don’t you love Las Vegas and hate the president, too, Congressman?)
News flash: The national economy is in a shambles. People are struggling to put food on their families’ tables, not planning trips to the Strip. And hurting companies that might otherwise have come here don’t need much of an excuse to cancel.
Obama’s comments did only marginal damage — and whatever effect they would have had is impossible to determine after Goodman started responding to every national TV program that wanted to see him fulminate, especially those who despise the president and were happy to use His Honor as a pawn.
And when Jim Gibbons suddenly realized there was another issue on the planet besides “no new taxes” that might excite his base (that ever-dwindling group living in Lake Tahoe enclaves and a few rural pockets), Ø couldn’t pass up the opportunity. He whined about the president not meeting with him, and then when Obama agreed to have him in the receiving line, where Gibbons could have said something, he whined again that wasn’t good enough. And now he is making up numbers — sort of like his budget last session — and claiming, without any evidence, that Obama’s remarks alone have cost the state $100 million and 400 conventions.
Does anyone wonder why Goodman didn’t use back channels at the time to get Obama to issue a clarification, or why Gibbons would have opted for another avenue besides news releases? I wonder.
So, no matter who is to blame, what happened in Elkhart didn’t stay in Elkhart. Whatever damage was done has been done; there’s nothing left for Obama or anyone else to say.
So here’s a suggestion for Goodman, Gibbons and the delegation now that this has escalated to the unthinkable point of legislation proposed by the Senate majority leader:
Can you all, finally, shut up about this?
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Vegas oddsmaker expects Adele to have a great night at Grammys
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Mitt Romney wins Maine caucuses, CPAC straw poll
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Apparently your buddy, Harry Reid, won't shut up either. It's about time and thank goodness. From article in LV Sun: "Reid introduced a bill Wednesday to prevent federal agencies from ruling out tourist destinations as places to hold official meetings. The bill follows outrage from Reid and other lawmakers last week after reports that agencies, acting on guidance dating back to last year and before, were avoiding locations with reputations as tourist destinations because of their reputations."
Although this absurd policy stems from the Bush administration, Obama verbalized it and his zealots took it to heart. Quoting the common sense of Steve Wynn: "The president has his own office and his own group of people who agree with him and look at the world just as he does and they don't listen to anyone from what I've heard from my business friends. They invite people down to Washington and tell them. They don't think or listen to anyone," Wynn said.
Thank goodness people won't shut up, John. It's the only way to modify the changes that are being made by the administration acting stupidly.
What? VegasD8, are you saying Obama's comments about going to Las Vegas on the taxpayers' dime originated with the Bush administration?
Reid's proposed policy is typical of somebody who has spent too much time inside the beltway. If we don't like something, we just propose legislation. What's next? Legislate cooler summers in Las Vegas? Legislate Pi to be 3.0? It's no stretch to state that Harry probably hasn't read any part of the Constitution lately. Probably has forgotten about the First Amendment.
We need term limits for everybody in Washington and a part-time Congress. They all need to spend more time back in the real world these days, earning more of their living in real jobs, paying real taxes, being real citizens.
And for you "elections are their own term limits" fools, it's not just Harry that needs to go. All the holier-than-thou's in Washington spend all our tax money. It's not just our SOB's that are the problem. It's everybody's SOB's that need to go. They all have to play the Go-Along to Get-Along game to help their buddies get re-elected: spend, spend, spend. All the SOB's in Washington party with their staffs on the taxpayers' dimes, buying favors to get themselves re-elected. Just imagine the good that could come to pass if they all suddenly became lame ducks!
The federal policies which prevent federal travel to Las Vegas have been in place since the Bush administration...not hard to do, since Obama only took office six months ago. (He certainly hasn't done anything to change them.)
I like Pres. Obama, but his anti-Vegas stance -- unlike the writer of this article, I think he *did* mean to single out Vegas with his comment -- is pure bullheadedness and pandering to the people (via the media) on his part. Flights to Las Vegas are cheap from just about every airport in the country, sometimes orders of magnitude cheaper than flights to Portland, OR (which is "approved" by the government and where I live). Hotel rooms in Vegas are dirt cheap right now, and while I haven't tried to book meeting space, I'd guess they're practically giving it away right now.
Las Vegas is a "buyer's market" for meeting planners right now. Dismissing it out of hand because it's a "resort destination" is just idiotic. But, that's the federal government for you.