"A turkey and some mistletoe"
Q. In today's list of topics, who is the turkey?
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 8:28 pm
Yes, Adam Laxalt does earn a lot more than me.
And that's great. God bless him and all that.
Just enjoy the life style, but please don't run for office again.
But alas, my wish will not come to fruition and it appears he is running for 2022.
As to another candidate, Sheriff Lombardo running for Governor, that may be quite difficult for him.
First, securing the Republican nomination for Governor will be most difficult as former US Senator Heller will start with a lot more resources and dramatically more state-wide name-recognition.
Secondly, when a current sheriff or Chief Of Police runs for higher office, what is the main issue of their campaign? It's usually how effective they are at fighting crime. But, sadly, in our current culture, I don't think I would want to run a campaign where I, as a white male, boast about how well me and my office have fought crime, supposedly "controlled" rallies and protests, etc.
That won't play well with many of the younger, more liberal democrat voters, many of who view the "controlling" of rallies and protests as suppressing free speech. And our state democratic party is now heavily populated by these younger, much more liberal voters
And that argument(fighting crime and controlling rallies and protests) will play even less well with republicans as many of them perceive that such rallies and protests were in fact not sufficiently "controlled" by law enforcement.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 8:51 pm
Laxalt does make more than I do. He also has a greater net worth (how do they come up with a range like $900k – $3.2? That's not exactly a rounding error). But I have never debased myself on national television promoting conspiracy theories in an attempt to ingratiate myself to the nutjobs in the base and/or Donald Trump. So I clearly come out ahead.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 8:58 pm
12:28, worse than that.
Many liberal democratic voters not only view law enforcement controlling of rallies as suppressing free speech, they also view it as situations where participants get physically harmed and even killed.
So, it's a lose lose. If he argues that METRO really controlled these rallies and protests, the republicans will say no you did not as a lot of these rallies and protests dissolved into looting, etc. A
And many democrats will argue that METRO "controlling" these protests resulted in young people being killed by police in a few of these situations.
So, it's a tough position to be in as I agree that he can't put a great deal of emphasis on his department's approach to crime. And since he's sheriff, it likewise appears quite strange if he does not place his crime control record front and center of his campaign.
That all said I prefer him to Heller in the primary, and would prefer him over Sisolak in the General. But I agree he is unlikely to make it to the General Election.
My money says Sisolak vs. Heller, and it is too close to call at this point–it will probably be decided by less than 1% or 2%.
Sisolak is not as unpopular as many assume. He still has sufficient political viability. It is extremely difficult to knock out a sitting governor.
I really want Stevie out of office. That said, there has to be someone who is a better candidate that Laxalt or Heller for any office. Both have lost elections (I have lost count), neither is credible. In advertisements, Laxalt always looks weak (he is certainly not Paul); while Heller always looks puffy, like he drinks too much. We need to find someone else.
Right. The man who wants to out-Trump Trump – and who apparently believes that Trump was re-elected – also wants to run for governor of a state that Trump lost by significant margins, and you call him viable. Why not the cosplaying Presidential electors to run while you're at it?
I'm not especially thrilled about the candidates my party seems to want to put up, which is why I expect I'll be voting for Sisolak's re-election. The party needs to realize there are consequences for encouraging this type of behavior.
Hate to say it but 2:51 is right. GOP is untethered to reality. Sisolak ain't great, but if it means showing the GOP what the electorate does NOT want in a candidate I just might have to vote for him. Here's to hoping the GOP can return to its roots as the party of economists and the rule of law rather than conspiracy theorist and people wholly unable to read the law.
2:51 and 3:21 are not republicans. Or, at least if they think they are must not know why they are. The current GOP, head in my opinion by DeSantis, is exactly the "typical" Republican who supports the rule of law and economic conservativism. This whole Trump obsession is over. Get with the program.
2:51 and 3:21 and 4:14 are all not Republicans. Not by the majority Republican standard. They are what is called Lincoln Project Republicans who support people like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
I'm deeply aware that my stances, which seemed solidly in the conservative/libertarian branch of the GOP just a dozen years ago, are now significantly to the left of the mainstream party.
Yes, the party is batshit insane at the moment. If at any time they come back to their senses and embrace the positions they claimed were the solid roots of the party (instead of the hard swerve into authoritarianism), they will again get my vote.
But there was a single Republican on the last ballot that I could vote for. Just one. All the rest of them were disgusting Gaetz and Boebert wannabes, and their opponent got my vote.
2:51 cemented zer party affiliation as not Republican. Authoritarian? That is laughable. Which party is forcing mandates, shutting people out of Twitter, and squashing all opposing viewpoints? Not the Rs. Typical Democrat projection and hypocrisy.
11:19 – That would be the GOP. A party of which, at least for the present, I'm still a member, as demonstrated by the registration card I got this week.
See, we used to be for small government. The thought of state legislators dictating what could or could not be taught in schools would be horrifying. See, for example, the hue and cry associated with the changes to the sex ed standards. Apparently, when the CRT boogeyman gets thrown out there, the GOP is okay with state mandates in Texas or Florida.
Jefferson said that government closest to the people governs best, and that used to be a staple. We prefer local government to state, and state government to federal. Yet when it comes to anti-mask mandates, that gets flipped. People close to the situation – public health officials, for example – get overridden by idiots in far off places.
The GOP's only current principle is power and not being Democrats. They want it, and will do whatever needs to happen to get it. So yeah. Until they return to actually being republicans, the party can go to hell.
-2:51
2:51 is so not a republican, but ze will keep telling zeself ze is.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 9:09 pm
12:28 & 12:58, that all assumes he is forced to run a campaign focusing primarily on his office's crime control record.
He can effectively focus on additional issues. But I agree that he is forced to make his office's crime control record a major issue(but not the only major issue) as he can't ignore it as that is what he has devoted his life and career to.
His whole career and reputation are built on crime control, so yes it's a major focus of his campaign. It has to be. But I think the above posters appear to suggest that it is the only major issue available to him.
I disagree that crime will be a weakness to Lombardo. I don't know much about Reno but Vegas crime is rising, especially in places like Summerlin, giving Lombardo a talking point with the snobby white women who live there. He has a strong "fund the police" platform that could carry him, imo.
I don't disagree that a "fund the police" platform might work, but if crime is rising in Clark County… and he's the top law enforcement official in Clark County… isn't that an argument against his ability to control crime?
I think he could overcome that. Police can't always stop a crime from happening. They aren't the Minority Report. It's usually responding to calls, picking up the pieces and helping the DAs office prosecute those responsible.
Agreed, 3:25. Combine that with the argument that Democrat policies are causing the increased crime, i.e., crazy inflation and rising rents/home prices, and he has a strong campaign.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 10:12 pm
Steve Sisolak, your Nevada Equal Rights office blows. You need a new director, Kara Jenkins needs to be replaced.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 10:28 pm
In case anyone cares about the Sherriff's race(now that Lombardo will not run for re-election but instead run for Governor), looks like such Sheriff's race will be a non-competitive yawnfest.
When a Clark County Sheriff retires and declines to run for re-election, they are invariably replaced by a high-ranking, anointed METRO official being elected in their place.
This time it is Undersheriff Kevin McMahill. I doubt anyone of consequence will emerge to run against him.
In Sheriff races, when there is a vacancy, it become a done deal once the high-ranking official is anointed.
There is only one historical exception. In 2014 Lombardo got elected by only a couple percent over long time METRO Lt.Larry Burns(actually don't remember Burns' rank. Could have been a Captain. Just not sure).
So, in essence, that one time there were two high ranking METRO officials with a lot of broad-based support, and both with a lot of resources.
Burns had the support of the rank-and-file cops, and some real ability to raise money and attract endorsements.
But problem was Lombardo proved even more adept at attracting important endorsements, and at raising money, and far more adept at raising gaming money.
Actually, Larry Burns(who, very sadly, prematurely passed) appeared to run a superior campaign to Lombardo even though he lost.
He lost a razor close 51% to 49% to someone with far more name-recognition, who was the anointed one, and who had far more important endorsements, and much, much more financial resources. By all rights, Burns should have lost by 20%, not a mere 2%.
So, his family and friends should always be proud of his strong showing and that he ran a race of integrity, and conducted his life and career with great integrity.
That's no knock on Lombardo who, as far as public officials go, can be considered a class act. He never seems to publicly disparage anyone.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 10:30 pm
2:28, you gave that race more discussion than it currently deserves because you are right that it is a non-race.
McMahill is the anointed one and it is all over.
That is unless I missed something. Did anyone else of any viability indicate an interest in running?
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 10:37 pm
Joey GIlbert = Steve Sisolak
2 sides of the same coin and they are buddies to boot. Look it up.
@452 believed the lies and then didn't believe the liars when they admitted that that they lied. Oh, wait….
Guest
Anonymous
December 17, 2021 5:53 pm
I cannot believe that the Roohani appointment drew no comments when it will arguably have a greater immediate impact on our practice than any of these other comments. We appointed someone who has NEVER practiced in state court. And to be candid (and Ellie you are nice person and fine practitioner in federal court) this is a political appointment based on family. And yeah once again we will hear "But she can grow into the job." My clients are already suffering due to that occurring in 2, 3, 4, 8, 23 and 24. FFS if you want to be appointed in state court, practice some in state court. If you want an appointment to the federal bench, practice in federal court. If you want a bankruptcy appointment, practice in bankruptcy court.
I wonder what Holland and Hart thinks of Roohani on the bench. They no offered their summer class (including Roohani) during the recession. I don't think it was an indictment of Roohani's ability, but you wonder if she might have a grudge for the firm's handling of their summer program.
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2021 5:52 pm
9:53–Your comments are every reasonable(as to appointees should have substantive experience in the court they will be assigned, and should have meaningful experience in the subject matters they will preside over, and that merit and not politics should determine these appointments.)
But,not to be un-necessarily cynical, but I have practiced since the 80's, and I have seen very few appointments that appeared to be motivated by finding the very best and most honorable attorney relative to the subject matter such appointee will preside over.
Politics, and other special considerations, dominate.
"A turkey and some mistletoe"
Q. In today's list of topics, who is the turkey?
Yes, Adam Laxalt does earn a lot more than me.
And that's great. God bless him and all that.
Just enjoy the life style, but please don't run for office again.
But alas, my wish will not come to fruition and it appears he is running for 2022.
As to another candidate, Sheriff Lombardo running for Governor, that may be quite difficult for him.
First, securing the Republican nomination for Governor will be most difficult as former US Senator Heller will start with a lot more resources and dramatically more state-wide name-recognition.
Secondly, when a current sheriff or Chief Of Police runs for higher office, what is the main issue of their campaign? It's usually how effective they are at fighting crime. But, sadly, in our current culture, I don't think I would want to run a campaign where I, as a white male, boast about how well me and my office have fought crime, supposedly "controlled" rallies and protests, etc.
That won't play well with many of the younger, more liberal democrat voters, many of who view the "controlling" of rallies and protests as suppressing free speech. And our state democratic party is now heavily populated by these younger, much more liberal voters
And that argument(fighting crime and controlling rallies and protests) will play even less well with republicans as many of them perceive that such rallies and protests were in fact not sufficiently "controlled" by law enforcement.
Laxalt does make more than I do. He also has a greater net worth (how do they come up with a range like $900k – $3.2? That's not exactly a rounding error). But I have never debased myself on national television promoting conspiracy theories in an attempt to ingratiate myself to the nutjobs in the base and/or Donald Trump. So I clearly come out ahead.
12:28, worse than that.
Many liberal democratic voters not only view law enforcement controlling of rallies as suppressing free speech, they also view it as situations where participants get physically harmed and even killed.
So, it's a lose lose. If he argues that METRO really controlled these rallies and protests, the republicans will say no you did not as a lot of these rallies and protests dissolved into looting, etc. A
And many democrats will argue that METRO "controlling" these protests resulted in young people being killed by police in a few of these situations.
So, it's a tough position to be in as I agree that he can't put a great deal of emphasis on his department's approach to crime. And since he's sheriff, it likewise appears quite strange if he does not place his crime control record front and center of his campaign.
That all said I prefer him to Heller in the primary, and would prefer him over Sisolak in the General. But I agree he is unlikely to make it to the General Election.
My money says Sisolak vs. Heller, and it is too close to call at this point–it will probably be decided by less than 1% or 2%.
Sisolak is not as unpopular as many assume. He still has sufficient political viability. It is extremely difficult to knock out a sitting governor.
I really want Stevie out of office. That said, there has to be someone who is a better candidate that Laxalt or Heller for any office. Both have lost elections (I have lost count), neither is credible. In advertisements, Laxalt always looks weak (he is certainly not Paul); while Heller always looks puffy, like he drinks too much. We need to find someone else.
Joey Gilbert. He's definitely viable, notwithstanding MSMs opinion of him.
Right. The man who wants to out-Trump Trump – and who apparently believes that Trump was re-elected – also wants to run for governor of a state that Trump lost by significant margins, and you call him viable. Why not the cosplaying Presidential electors to run while you're at it?
I'm not especially thrilled about the candidates my party seems to want to put up, which is why I expect I'll be voting for Sisolak's re-election. The party needs to realize there are consequences for encouraging this type of behavior.
-lifelong Republican
Hate to say it but 2:51 is right. GOP is untethered to reality. Sisolak ain't great, but if it means showing the GOP what the electorate does NOT want in a candidate I just might have to vote for him. Here's to hoping the GOP can return to its roots as the party of economists and the rule of law rather than conspiracy theorist and people wholly unable to read the law.
2:51 and 3:21 are not republicans. Or, at least if they think they are must not know why they are. The current GOP, head in my opinion by DeSantis, is exactly the "typical" Republican who supports the rule of law and economic conservativism. This whole Trump obsession is over. Get with the program.
2:51 and 3:21 and 4:14 are all not Republicans. Not by the majority Republican standard. They are what is called Lincoln Project Republicans who support people like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
2:51 here.
I'm deeply aware that my stances, which seemed solidly in the conservative/libertarian branch of the GOP just a dozen years ago, are now significantly to the left of the mainstream party.
Yes, the party is batshit insane at the moment. If at any time they come back to their senses and embrace the positions they claimed were the solid roots of the party (instead of the hard swerve into authoritarianism), they will again get my vote.
But there was a single Republican on the last ballot that I could vote for. Just one. All the rest of them were disgusting Gaetz and Boebert wannabes, and their opponent got my vote.
2:51 cemented zer party affiliation as not Republican. Authoritarian? That is laughable. Which party is forcing mandates, shutting people out of Twitter, and squashing all opposing viewpoints? Not the Rs. Typical Democrat projection and hypocrisy.
11:19 – That would be the GOP. A party of which, at least for the present, I'm still a member, as demonstrated by the registration card I got this week.
See, we used to be for small government. The thought of state legislators dictating what could or could not be taught in schools would be horrifying. See, for example, the hue and cry associated with the changes to the sex ed standards. Apparently, when the CRT boogeyman gets thrown out there, the GOP is okay with state mandates in Texas or Florida.
Jefferson said that government closest to the people governs best, and that used to be a staple. We prefer local government to state, and state government to federal. Yet when it comes to anti-mask mandates, that gets flipped. People close to the situation – public health officials, for example – get overridden by idiots in far off places.
The GOP's only current principle is power and not being Democrats. They want it, and will do whatever needs to happen to get it. So yeah. Until they return to actually being republicans, the party can go to hell.
-2:51
2:51 is so not a republican, but ze will keep telling zeself ze is.
12:28 & 12:58, that all assumes he is forced to run a campaign focusing primarily on his office's crime control record.
He can effectively focus on additional issues. But I agree that he is forced to make his office's crime control record a major issue(but not the only major issue) as he can't ignore it as that is what he has devoted his life and career to.
His whole career and reputation are built on crime control, so yes it's a major focus of his campaign. It has to be. But I think the above posters appear to suggest that it is the only major issue available to him.
I disagree that crime will be a weakness to Lombardo. I don't know much about Reno but Vegas crime is rising, especially in places like Summerlin, giving Lombardo a talking point with the snobby white women who live there. He has a strong "fund the police" platform that could carry him, imo.
I don't disagree that a "fund the police" platform might work, but if crime is rising in Clark County… and he's the top law enforcement official in Clark County… isn't that an argument against his ability to control crime?
I think he could overcome that. Police can't always stop a crime from happening. They aren't the Minority Report. It's usually responding to calls, picking up the pieces and helping the DAs office prosecute those responsible.
Agreed, 3:25. Combine that with the argument that Democrat policies are causing the increased crime, i.e., crazy inflation and rising rents/home prices, and he has a strong campaign.
Steve Sisolak, your Nevada Equal Rights office blows. You need a new director, Kara Jenkins needs to be replaced.
In case anyone cares about the Sherriff's race(now that Lombardo will not run for re-election but instead run for Governor), looks like such Sheriff's race will be a non-competitive yawnfest.
When a Clark County Sheriff retires and declines to run for re-election, they are invariably replaced by a high-ranking, anointed METRO official being elected in their place.
This time it is Undersheriff Kevin McMahill. I doubt anyone of consequence will emerge to run against him.
In Sheriff races, when there is a vacancy, it become a done deal once the high-ranking official is anointed.
There is only one historical exception. In 2014 Lombardo got elected by only a couple percent over long time METRO Lt.Larry Burns(actually don't remember Burns' rank. Could have been a Captain. Just not sure).
So, in essence, that one time there were two high ranking METRO officials with a lot of broad-based support, and both with a lot of resources.
Burns had the support of the rank-and-file cops, and some real ability to raise money and attract endorsements.
But problem was Lombardo proved even more adept at attracting important endorsements, and at raising money, and far more adept at raising gaming money.
Actually, Larry Burns(who, very sadly, prematurely passed) appeared to run a superior campaign to Lombardo even though he lost.
He lost a razor close 51% to 49% to someone with far more name-recognition, who was the anointed one, and who had far more important endorsements, and much, much more financial resources. By all rights, Burns should have lost by 20%, not a mere 2%.
So, his family and friends should always be proud of his strong showing and that he ran a race of integrity, and conducted his life and career with great integrity.
That's no knock on Lombardo who, as far as public officials go, can be considered a class act. He never seems to publicly disparage anyone.
2:28, you gave that race more discussion than it currently deserves because you are right that it is a non-race.
McMahill is the anointed one and it is all over.
That is unless I missed something. Did anyone else of any viability indicate an interest in running?
Joey GIlbert = Steve Sisolak
2 sides of the same coin and they are buddies to boot. Look it up.
Only one half of that coin was standing on the Capitol steps on 1/6/20. And it wasn't Sisolak.
So there's that.
The "insurrection"? Do people actually still think that is a thing? Do you also believe Trump "colluded" with Russia?
Yes and yes
@452 believed the lies and then didn't believe the liars when they admitted that that they lied. Oh, wait….
I cannot believe that the Roohani appointment drew no comments when it will arguably have a greater immediate impact on our practice than any of these other comments. We appointed someone who has NEVER practiced in state court. And to be candid (and Ellie you are nice person and fine practitioner in federal court) this is a political appointment based on family. And yeah once again we will hear "But she can grow into the job." My clients are already suffering due to that occurring in 2, 3, 4, 8, 23 and 24. FFS if you want to be appointed in state court, practice some in state court. If you want an appointment to the federal bench, practice in federal court. If you want a bankruptcy appointment, practice in bankruptcy court.
As a practical matter, all Roohani got was a push to go file for the 2022 election and take her chances. Let's see who files against her . . .
I wonder what Holland and Hart thinks of Roohani on the bench. They no offered their summer class (including Roohani) during the recession. I don't think it was an indictment of Roohani's ability, but you wonder if she might have a grudge for the firm's handling of their summer program.
9:53–Your comments are every reasonable(as to appointees should have substantive experience in the court they will be assigned, and should have meaningful experience in the subject matters they will preside over, and that merit and not politics should determine these appointments.)
But,not to be un-necessarily cynical, but I have practiced since the 80's, and I have seen very few appointments that appeared to be motivated by finding the very best and most honorable attorney relative to the subject matter such appointee will preside over.
Politics, and other special considerations, dominate.