From Citizen Outreach:

By: Chuck Muth

GET PORTER

Clark County Deputy District Attorney Robert Daskas officially filed as a Democrat candidate against incumbent Rep. Jon Porter for Nevada’s 3rd congressional district seat next year. And despite fending off three spirited attempts to unseat him in the past, Porter could very well reach the end of the political line this time around.

First, this district, originally carved out specifically to help Porter win the seat in 2002, continues to trend pro-Democrat in voter registration numbers. Pure math – real math, not government school math – dictates that Porter is vulnerable.

Secondly, unlike the Democrat challenger in 2006 – the very “green” Tessa Hafen, whose sole qualification for the seat was her employment with Sen. Harry Reid – Daskas has substance as a career prosecutor. Repeat…prosecutor. Not ambulance chaser or bleeding-heart defense attorney.

But the real problem for Porter next year may well be that he’s a moderate Republican now serving in the minority.

When Republicans were in the majority, a lot of conservatives came out, held their noses, and voted for some marginal moderate Republicans simply to retain their majority in Congress. Those conservatives finally had enough last year and decided Republicans needed to be taught a lesson. So they stayed home or left the race for Congress blank or voted for a third party candidate. And Republicans, as a result, lost their majority.

One consequence of that is that Republicans in Congress now have to vote on some rather tough, controversial bills which under GOP control would never have seen the light of day, such as the SCHIP vote. And that means some Republicans like Jon Porter have had their true “moderate” stripes exposed.

Conservatives in Porter’s district now have ample evidence that their “Republican” representative in Congress is no principled conservative. Not even a fiscal conservative, as evidenced by his failing grade on Club for Growth’s “RePORK Card,” which rated members of Congress on their votes to strip out pork and earmarks from spending bill. The fact is, Jon Porter LOVES the other white meat.

Indeed, a story out today in National Review Online (hat tip to Jon Ralston’s “Flash”) notes a pledge Rep. Porter and other Republicans made to President Bush earlier this year which read: “Should you veto an FY 2008 appropriations bill because it would contribute to an overall spending level that exceeds your budget request, we will vote to sustain that veto.”

Sure enough, President Bush vetoed the Labor/Health/Education bill because “Spending in this legislation had ballooned by $10 billion over the president’s budget request.” However, “15 Republican House members who had signed that letter broke their word and voted to override the president’s veto.”

Porter was one of the “Flip-Flopping 15.”

So with virtually no chance for Republicans to regain their House majority next year, what reason do conservatives have to pull big-government Porter’s lever again? Frankly…none. The sole reason of retaining the GOP majority is gone. If Porter’s elected, Pelosi is the Speaker. If Daskas is elected, Pelosi is the Speaker. So why vote for a “Republican” who votes for pork, votes to expand SCHIP and votes to override the president’s veto of budget-busting bills?

Porter barely beat the relative lightweight Hafen last time out by 4,000 votes. That was before conservatives learned just how bad of a conservative Porter really is deep down in his heart. Daskas shouldn’t be measuring the drapes yet, but Porter might want to start polishing up that insurance salesman resume of his.

TAKING CHRISTMAS OUT OF CHRISTMAS

Susan Martinovich, head of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), must have been living under a rock for the past couple of Christmases. Indeed, for at least the last two years there has been major public backlash against efforts by government and retailers to “take Christ out of Christmas” by referring to the Christmas holiday at schools as the “Winter” holiday, calling Christmas trees “holiday” trees, banning the public recitation of Christmas carols which mention Jesus’ name, and even changing the traditional “Merry Christmas” greeting to “Happy Holidays.” How else to explain this November 27 directive Martinovich sent to NDOT employees:

“In this spirit of the season, it should be remembered that parties and other events in the workplace should be referred to as holiday parties, and so on, so as not to slight any religious group.”

Hmmm. The politically correct way to celebrate CHRISTMAS season is to not mention the word CHRISTMAS? This, according to Martinovich, is to assure that no religious group is offended…OTHER THAN CHRISTIANS. Makes perfect sense.

Martinovich’s internal directive became public today, resulting in howls of outrage directed at the governor’s office. And our PC transportation chieftess has now executed a major-league U-turn.

“A recent e-mail message regarding what to call workplace parties has generated an expression of concern by many of our employees,” Martinovich writes in a CYA follow-up email today. “Please understand there was no intent to slight or offend anyone. However, that is exactly what has occurred and for that I am sorry. The intent was to respect the beliefs and practices of all our employees. To accomplish this, please feel free to call the celebrations what you feel most appropriate, while respecting the practices and beliefs of others and in keeping an appropriate workplace environment.”

Isn’t that special?

Merry Christmas, Suzy.

CASE CLOSED

I met with Mike Willden, the chief of Nevada Health and Human Services, at his request this afternoon to discuss the problems I’ve been having with his Child & Family Services division over this “child neglect” complaint which was filed anonymously against Gia and me. Great guy. Almost all of my concerns, at least those which he can do something about, were addressed and resolved, including providing me with a copy of the original complaint.

The case has now been officially closed.

That doesn’t completely end this, though. Some of the problems I discovered with the system are problems in the law which will have to be dealt with legislatively. And rest assured I will be championing those changes in the Legislature.

Full report on this largely successful outcome coming soon…as soon as I get back from trying to save Nevada’s charter schools from the state Board of Education tonight. Stay tuned for a complete wrap-up.