ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - GEOFF SCHUMACHER: Titus vs. Porter -- now that's entertainment!

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

May. 04, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: Titus vs. Porter -- now that's entertainment!

GEOFF SCHUMACHER
MORE COLUMNS

Like everybody else in the country, Las Vegans have been transfixed by the volatile campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But while the Obama-Clinton duel is fascinating, local voters capable of focusing on more than one political drama at a time have not had a second one to get excited about.

Until now. Last week, Democrat Robert Daskas abruptly halted his nascent bid to unseat Republican Rep. Jon Porter. Soon after, state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus announced that she would take up the challenge instead.

Share & Save

What is this?

Most Popular Stories

LETTERS: No school administrator left behind

LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program

LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure

FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?

EDITORIAL: The governor's e-mail

EDITORIAL: Tuition hikes

LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste

EDITORIAL: Sending the right message

EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'

While Porter vs. Daskas looked like a snoozefest, Porter vs. Titus promises to deliver all the taunting, punching and gouging you could ever want in a political contest. And it'll be close, too.

Titus, a veteran state political leader, is coming off a crushing defeat in the 2006 governor's race. Titus, a Las Vegan, could not buy a vote anywhere north of Beatty. It didn't matter that she was a more qualified and thoughtful candidate than Republican Jim Gibbons, she could not persuade Northern Nevada provincialists to vote against one of their own.

The 3rd Congressional District, however, is a different story. Northern Nevada will not be a factor in this race, eliminating a huge obstacle for Titus. In addition, the district encompasses much of Titus' state Senate district, where she is well known and liked. And thanks largely to excitement over January's presidential caucuses, the Democrats have built a significant voter registration lead in the district.

While the political geography has shrunk, the panorama of issues for Titus to exploit has grown geometrically. The campaign is no longer about the state budget, it's about the Iraq war, the economy, health care and immigration reform. It's about No Child Left Behind and medical services for war veterans, torture and the $400 billion deficit, oil dependence and Blackwater.

At one time considered a moderate, Porter has in Washington become a sycophant of the Bush administration. It will not be difficult for Titus to legitimately link Porter with the Iraq quagmire, the spiraling economy and rising health care costs. Porter's opposition to Yucca Mountain and support for stem cell research simply do not signify his independence from the president's overarching agenda.

After three terms, Porter has failed to distinguish himself in Congress, except as a devoted benchwarmer for one of the most destructive presidential outfits in American history. Titus has at her disposal enough raw material to hammer Porter with a fresh piece of damning evidence every single day until Nov. 4.

That said, Titus is far from a lock to win the race. Other factors will come into play. First and foremost: money. Titus must amass -- quickly -- a considerable campaign fund to effectively counter Porter's well-financed attacks. The kind of money she needs will have to come largely from national resources. Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will have to capitalize on a tremendous opportunity to pick up a crucial seat.

Second, Titus must be prepared for Porter to attack her mercilessly with ads that play fast and loose with the facts. Over three terms, Porter has learned from his GOP brethren that honor and decency always take a back seat to victory.

Titus is no political neophyte. A political science professor by trade, she understands the terrain. She is more than capable of defending herself. But that's only one piece of the puzzle.

A football analogy seems apt: The best defense is a good offense. The longer Titus is able to keep her offense on the field, the fewer opportunities for Porter's offense to score.

That means pounding Porter with the facts of his and his party's failures. There's no need to distort or mislead. Two dozen carefully researched books document the myriad failures of the Bush presidency, and Porter has supported just about every mistake Bush has made.

It strikes me that voters are looking for leaders, not followers. They want candidates who have given considerable thought to where they stand on major issues and can articulate a confident, coherent worldview. Titus is a proven leader who can explain her positions without resorting to cue cards. Porter is a follower who over three terms has failed to deliver any evidence of a vision for the nation's future.

And yet this is 21st century politics we're talking about. Leadership and vision are always important, but campaign savvy is paramount. One reason Al Gore won the 2000 presidential race by only 500,000 votes (i.e., not enough) is that he pulled his punches. He went safe and lost his fire. Titus can't afford to do that.

A key reason John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential race is he failed to respond quickly and aggressively to Republican attacks. Amid the onslaught of swift boat propaganda, Kerry couldn't get his offense back on the field. Titus can't afford to do that, either.

To avoid the Gore and Kerry scenarios, Titus should bring in a couple of "pros from Dover," to borrow a line from "M*A*S*H." Bold, creative and determined to win are essential characteristics of her ideal campaign brain trust. Of course, there's a crucial second part to the equation: If Titus is able to hire some high-powered consultants, she has to actually listen to them.

However things play out, Las Vegans are guaranteed now to get an entertaining and competitive congressional race. Blood and entrails -- at least in a political sense -- will be strewn across Southern Nevada as Porter and Titus fight for every last vote. Politics is not for the weak of heart.

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@reviewjournal.com) is Stephens Media's director of community publications. He is the author of "Sun, Sin & Suburbia: An Essential History of Modern Las Vegas" and "Howard Hughes: Power, Paranoia & Palace Intrigue," both published by Stephens Press. His column appears Sunday.

Leave Your Comment	14 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on May 07, 2008 02:01 PM: Hey, "Sad Summerlin" you must be in the quickly shrinking, but lingering, very small minority of Republicans still denying the FACTS! I know a lot of moderate Republicans - and they are more angry than my Democrat friends at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Ensign, Gibbons, Heller and Porter! The FACT of the matter is most of the new changes in registration are due to Republicans leaving that corrupt party in droves and re-registering as Independents or Democrats! And linking Porter (or Ensign, Gibbons or Heller as empty suits that only support their wealthy donors and corporate cronies) is NOT a stretch at all - their public voting records clearly reflect the FACTS! Not just a few facts here and there - but, an overwhelming number of FACTS! So, why not take your own advice "Sad Summerlin" and YOU "be honest" will ya? Geoff Schmacher's column is RIGHT ON! Randy wrote on May 06, 2008 12:46 AM: Ok, lets see, i voted For Ronald Reagan once (was 17 the first election), George bush Senior 2 times, Dole once, George Bush junior 2 times, Kenny Guinn for Govenor twice, Supported john Ensign several times. Dina titus for govenor was the First Time i ever voted for a Democratic Canidate. she speaks her mind, and stands by her convictions, and yes, if you look at her record, she works for the People of the state of Nevada. And, if you look at my statement, i never even remotely said i was voting for a democratic Nominee for President, i said i met and talked with both of these people, and Porter, like Ensign when questioned, speak the same words as Bush does, hardly ever disagreeing with Bush on anything, and are very much Anti-worker, pro-big Business. Sad Summerlin wrote on May 06, 2008 12:06 AM: "Republican Monkeys"? "Lapdog for our worst President in History"? "Honestly Does Care"? "Independent Thinker"? Sorry, Randy, but I can't recall any Republican friend I know use those words to describe anyone (except maybe Jimmy Carter as the worst President in History). Those statements are all nice talking points and buzz words that prove to me that you haven't got a conservative bone in your body... so let's be honest here. Bush may not be the best President. He may have made mistakes, and in fact, he may have been foolish and listened to bad advice. And if you are Liberal, you may even believe he premeditated the invasion of Iraq to get back at the assassination attempt on Bush 41 (I just love that argument... LOL). And let's go even further into thinking Gibbons has been "the worst governor ever"... okay... I have it. I got it. And all take that as a given from you... With all that said... and theoretically agreed upon... How do you leap to Dina Titus as being a valid candidate for Congress? Come on, now? Let's be real... Sure you have your gripes against Bush, against Gibbons and let's stretch and associate Porter with Bush... But really, man... is Porter's association with Bush really worth putting Titus in office? Sorry? I didn't hear your argument FOR Titus except "she honestly cares and is an independent thinker"... Really Randy... WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Be honest Randy... Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on May 05, 2008 08:48 PM: I love it Geoff when journalist report facts - THANKS! Here are some more FACTS about Porter: Porter has voted AGAINST pay raises for OUR Troops! Porter has voted AGAINST bonuses for OUR Troops in combat! Porter has voted AGAINST much needed equpment for OUR Troops - like BODY ARMOR! Porter has voted AGAINST much needed, though paltry, increases for OUR Military Families! Porter has voted AGAINST fully funding the V.A. budget and AGAINST the needs of Disabled Veterans time and time again! The 30,000 Veterans in C.D. #3 need to know these facts! For sometime Porter has been pulling the wool over their eyes by coming back to Nevada, putting together a small group of low information vets and military families, blowing smoke up their butts and telling them what he thinks they want to hear - then, going right back to Washington, D.C. and breaking his promises and voting AGAINST them - because he knows most people do not check the Congressional Record! Porter has been nothing short of a pathetic poltical puppet and Bush bag-boy for his wealthy Republican donors and corporate cronies! Porter does not represent Nevadan's issues in Washington, D.C. - Porter represents Washington, D.C. in Nevada (and that is just "ack basswards")! It's past time that all of the people in C.D. #3, Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike, vote this bum out of office once and for the good of all! Trying to call Tessa Hafen, a 5 generation Nevadan, a "carpetbagger" was nothing short of an out-and-out lie! In fact, Titus did live in the C.D. #3 area until the Republicans purposely gerrymandered and moved the official parameters a few blocks to ensure she was shut out! BTW: Porter had to move into C.D. #3 when he first ran for office here - another FACT! Randy wrote on May 05, 2008 03:44 AM: I See a Bunch of Foolish republican Monkeys Following the same path they have always Followed, "Dina Taxes". yet look at the govenor you all elected, less then a year, and already rated the worst Govenor in Nevada's History. Use Facts, not rhetoric. I too am a republican, and I can tell you I have met both Porter and Titus, and unfortunately, Geoff's Article is True. Porter is nothing but a Lapdog for our worst President in History, and like the loyal lapdog he is, he brings home worthless scraps and then boasts about them. Regardless of what you may think of Dina Titus personally, I can truly say that she Honestly Does Care about the welfare of the people of the State of Nevada, and she is an independant Thinker. As a Republican, I would vote for her easily over Porter. Jeff wrote on May 04, 2008 11:25 PM: I've noticed that Geoff is quite a snob. Whenever the voters of Nevada elect an official he does not like, he calls us stupid. In this article, he rips on Northern Nevada for refusing to support a Las Vegan in the last gubernatorial race. That's ridiculous! Our 3 previous governors - Guinn, Miller, and Bryan - were all Las Vegans. The real reason Titus fared poorly up there is because she is a socialist union hack. Unions are weak in Reno and, therefore, she got no support. I'm not looking forward to this "entertaining" race. I think it will be very annoying. Steve wrote on May 04, 2008 06:39 PM: John F, Good day, Sir. There is one more difference between Clinton and Ronald Reagan....Reagan had a Democratic controlled Congress....Clinton had Republican. Sad Summerlin wrote on May 04, 2008 06:17 PM: Run Dina Run... Easiest way for the Republicans to keep their seat is to have Dina be the candidate. I still can't believe that this is the most qualified person in all of Nevada from the Democrats to run in this election. She doesn't even live in the District and they are important her to run. There HAS to be someone else that could do better, or are the Democrats resigned to losing this seat to a weak Republican year after year after year. Learn from history - Race 1 - Carpetbagger lost Race 2 - Reid's Personal Assistant with no experience (good try, but fell short). Race 3 - Another Carpet Bagger (only more local this time).... And since when did this thread become about Al Gore and Ronald Reagan? Lol. John F wrote on May 04, 2008 04:30 PM: Reagan may have paid lip service to the idea that government was the problem, but the numbers put the lie to the notion that he practiced what he preached. According to the Congressional Budget Office, total government outlays in 1981 were $678.2 billion. For 1990 outlays were $1.144 TRILLION. Federal spending nearly doubled during his administration (just under 70%). For the eight years of the Clinton administration, federal outlays increased by about 35%. Who was the fiscal conservative? Further, we ran over $1.8 trillion in deficits and added over $1.3 trillion to our national debt during the Reagan administration. Until our current President came along, Ronald Reagan was, by far, the most fiscally irresponsible President we've ever had. Carl G wrote on May 04, 2008 03:48 PM: Titus's disguised socialism is not what we need in Nevada. Error on the side of individual responsibility and self respect and vote for leaders who inspire, not pretenders who spend. Government, in the words of Ronald Reagan "is not the answer to your problem--government is the problem". Al Gore lost the race in 2000 and I thank God for that. Read All Comments