The overreaction that won’t go away

By Jon Ralston

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?