Can state lawmakers reach across party lines?

By Jon Ralston

Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Mike McGinness, the new state Senate minority leader who says he acquired his post because of grass-roots revulsion at Bill Raggio’s endorsement of Harry Reid, thinks the U.S. Senate majority leader “has done a remarkable job.”

Bob Cashell, the Reno mayor who eventually endorsed Reid and thinks additional revenue is necessary to fund education, also backed Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval, who believes no new taxes are needed.

And Raggio, who may be the most effective legislative leader this state has seen, embraced Reid and taxes (twice in the past decade) and yet he also is the major reason the 2009 levies are sunsetting.

These men all have something in common — their party affiliation. Which raises the question: What is a Nevada Republican — or any Republican — these days?

Do you need to pass the “no new taxes” or “no more Reid(s)” litmus tests? Or are you allowed to be a little more nuanced and thoughtful, with conclusions dependent on the situation?

Alas, campaigns do not lend themselves to much nuance or thought, with bludgeons and rhetoric the preferred weapons. But soon, in Washington and Carson City, it’s time to govern and one wonders if the days of mindless genuflection to vocal minorities are at an end or about to begin anew.

This is hardly just true of Republicans. Democrats have been guilty of kowtowing to the teachers union when it comes to education, of enabling other public employee associations when it comes to salaries and benefits and of chanting an equally vacuous “money solves everything” mantra when it comes to fixing anything.

So far it’s hard to discern where Democratic leaders come down, although it’s widely assumed Assembly Speaker John Oceguera and Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford support a tax increase. But they are pointing the finger at Sandoval, saying it’s the governor-elect’s play before they show any cards.

Clever. And craven.

But I’ll deal with the Democrats another day. Today I am focusing on McGinness, who may not be as simple to figure as some think.

The biennially thoughtful Fallon lawmaker insisted on “Face to Face” this week that he only decided to try for minority leader after four counties, including Clark, put up resolutions eviscerating Raggio for his Reid embrace. He called it “a grass-roots movement” and said he feared “the caucus would be meaningless” unless there was a change.

But let’s not forget McGinness is about to enter the final session of his career — he is term-limited — and I think that played a role, too. “I thought I could be a transition figure between Sen. Raggio and whoever comes next,” he said. “I trust myself more than anyone else.”

McGinness has voted for taxes — in 2003 — but he opposed the 2009 increase and said on “Face to Face” that Raggio did not behave as a true Republican in pushing the package during a recession.

But McGinness surprisingly added, he can understand why Raggio, Cashell and other Republicans would have supported Reid over Sharron Angle. “You have to admit he’s (Reid) done a remarkable job,” McGinness said.

McGinness also said it was a mistake to enter the session with an inflexible “no new taxes” pledge, saying “everything has to be on the table.” The newly minted leader said “it’s going to be tough” for the newly minted governor to keep his no-tax promise. “We’ll just have to see what comes up,” he said.

Cashell had only praise for McGinness and said he doesn’t blame him for deposing Raggio, who like the mayor has been sneered at as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Cashell said it is vindictiveness by “the Tea Partyers,” who he said “are the ones who are causing all the trouble. They are not trying to work with anyone. They don’t want someone to try to be a moderate.” Cashell said McGinness “took the leadership role because of the chaos that’s going on and he’ll do a damn good job.”

His Honor was less equivocal than McGinness about taxes, too. “There’s got to be some revenues raised,” the mayor insisted.

Heresy, eh, Republicans? Or, perhaps, common sense.

So is it possible this is the session that folks reach across party lines to accomplish something substantive on the budget and tax reform?

McGinness’ answer: “With redistricting out there, probably not.”

There it is, the Pollyanna Buzzkill. Yes, redistricting and reapportionment could be the rather large fly in the ointment.

Here’s an idea: Maybe Gov.-elect Sandoval, with assent from legislative leaders, should announce in January that the redrawing of lines will occur in a special session after the regular session, with no discussion of maps allowed until then. Now that’s an idea that Republicans, RINOS and Democrats should embrace.

Who’s on board?