Might the House special be special, after all?

By Jon Ralston

Sunday, July 31, 2011 | 2 a.m.

Is that fear I smell or is the National Republican Congressional Committee just happy to be here?

Is Kate Marshall a financial genius or the worst investor in history?

Is Mark Amodei a tax-happy lawmaker or our last bulwark against a Chinese invasion?

Most importantly: Who would have guessed the first special House election in Nevada history actually could get interesting.

Not I.

Granted, all of this sudden activity four weeks before early voting begins could be only sound and fury, still signifying a continuation of a fruitless 30 years in the Republican wilderness for Democratic hopefuls in the 2nd Congressional District. And while I still consider it likely Amodei will find a way not to lose, he does seem to be trying his best to make it interesting.

The Republican nominee, a former state lawmaker and GOP chairman, has done so by taking no definitive position on anything, save that he would not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances in his lifetime or anyone else’s, by raising an absurdly small sum of money and by relying on history and demographics to save him.

That may, indeed, be enough. But the alacrity and ferocity with which the NRCC reacted to Marshall’s first television buy indicates the national GOP folks know they can’t afford to take any chances, especially because one of the spots is devastatingly brutal about Amodei’s support for what was in 2003 the largest tax increase in history.

No one should underestimate what’s at stake here for national Republicans, which is a chance to erase a string of Democratic special election victories and proclaim Sept. 13 as the day (there’s also a special in N.Y.) the tide turned against the Obama-Reid agenda and to presage GOP victories for 2012. They want that headline, need that headline, crave that headline. And in a district that is solidly Republican, any other storyline would give Democrats momentum — ephemeral though it might be.

The NRCC, by making a quarter of a million dollar buy and trying to change the subject by raising Marshall’s party affiliation (she can’t seem to remember what it is), may be in “take no chances” mode. But, as Politico’s Dave Catanese wrote Friday, “it’s quite striking that the NRCC is intervening this early in a district that’s never been held by a Democrat.”

Marshall’s $200,000 to $100,000 advantage over Amodei as of June 30 — and he had $40,000 in debt — stunned observers who did not know the Republican’s reputation for, shall we say, not exactly being a nose-to-the-grindstone kind of guy. But whether it’s caution or panic, the NRCC did what it had to do to prop up its standard-bearer as Marshall’s assault was focused on exactly the issue most Republicans feared could be used against him: Taxes.

These are the facts, folks: In 2003, then-state Sen. Amodei co-sponsored what would have been the largest tax increase in Nevada history — one estimate was it would have raised $1.6 billion — and later voted for an $830 million tax increase that a band of Assembly Republicans spent months trying to block.

Forget that it was proposed by a Republican governor (Kenny Guinn) and that most GOP senators voted for it. And forget that it was seen by a wide spectrum of folks as a responsible vote. Amodei can dance around it all he wants now, saying he was trying to head off the gross receipts tax apocalypse. But the record is clear.

And that’s why the NRCC is here to muddy the waters by turning the focus back on Marshall, who has claimed, most recently on “Face to Face” last week: “I’ve taken the state through this fiscal crisis, steered it with a steady hand …”

That snippet is in the NRCC ad about Democrat Kate Marshall and is one of the more hyperbolic statements made in recent campaigns. This would be as if an accountant for a business took credit for steering it through a financial storm, when the only powers he or she has are ministerial, and the CEO (governor) and the board (Legislature) make the decisions.

The NRCC’s main goal is to point out Marshall’s party affiliation (there’s a picture of her with President Barack Obama, too), but the ad also raises questions about her investment with Lehman Brothers. I continue to believe this is unfair because she was no economic oracle and few foretold the collapse of Lehman. But if she is portraying herself as, well, an economic oracle, then she’s asking for it.

How ironic: Marshall exaggerates her credentials and then gets pilloried for being what she said she was.

So, the question now becomes: If Kate Marshall is going to bankrupt the country and Mark Amodei loves taxes, what’s a voter in CD2 to do?

Pay attention, perhaps?