Empty air behind candidates’ current criticisms

By Jon Ralston

Friday, May 21, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Lamenting the level of political discourse in Nevada or the lack of underlying philosophical moorings in most candidates is as unproductive as trying to figure out how Oscar voters thought “Titanic” was a better film than “L.A. Confidential.”

It’s fruitless and frustrating and never more so, if early portents are harbingers, in the battle for Carson City control. And if two recent candidate appearances on “Face to Face” are any guide — and something tells me they are — the battle for the soul of the Nevada GOP is less moderate vs. conservative than moderate vs. know-nothing.

I think it’s fair game for primary challengers to Republican incumbents who have voted for legislative tax increases to assail those votes and force the legislators to defend them. They should have to articulate a philosophy behind the difficult decision to raise taxes in 2009 and show why they are not in the wrong party. Fair enough.

But why shouldn’t the converse hold true, too? Why shouldn’t these primary foes have to explain why they wouldn’t have voted for taxes in the same situation and what they would have done differently?

They should, of course. But most — or perhaps nearly all — can’t. And yet they want to have the moniker “conservative” conferred upon them because they signed inane tax pledges or can, like robots with bad programming, repeat the utterances from the Gibbonsworld dictionary: No new taxes, live within our means, tighten our belts.

So this is what it means to be a conservative these days — not dissecting government spending and crafting innovative ways to gradually change the system, but to mindlessly spew superficial nonsense and canned clichés?

I now arrive at the evidence for my claim — the recent appearances by Patrick McNaught, trying to defeat Assemblyman Joe Hardy in the race for state Sen. Warren Hardy’s seat, and Elizabeth Halseth, trying to oust state Sen. Dennis Nolan.

McNaught was the lesser of the two evils — and I mean to damn with faint praise.

“We have to create reform and live within our budget,” he told me. “We have to live with what we have.”

I held down my lunch despite that emeticlike rhetoric and pressed him for ideas. And he said — I couldn’t make this up — “The first thing we need to look at … cutting legislative pay.”

Considering lawmakers make slightly more than a homeless person collects in two years of panhandling, that is political candy fed to voters who just might swallow it. Tastes sweet, but does nothing for you.

McNaught also said he had “spent a lot of time looking through” the budget, yet couldn’t give me one line item to cut. Not one.

(To be fair, Hardy backed out of the debate, which was craven and surely a product of a consultant telling him he is going to win and had nothing to gain. We’ll see June 8.)

McNaught, though, was positively Churchillian compared with Halseth — and I won’t even talk about her obscene and misguided use of Nolan’s testimony in a rape trial (he was subpoenaed and yet she actually insisted on air, “Show me the subpoena”).

During a debate this week, Nolan defended his 2009 tax vote and refused to express any regrets. So I asked Halseth what she would have done differently.

“Raising taxes has never been the answer,” she offered, expressing what can now be called the Sandoval Doctrine, expressed by gubernatorial contender Brian Sandoval in his frenzied, frothing rush to the right.

But what would she have done?

“We need to start with zero-based budgeting,” she offered.

Fine — or not — prospectively. But what about during the 2009 session?

“First of all, we can start looking at PERS (the retirement system),” she shifted.

That’s not the general fund and would not have balanced the 2009 budget. So where?

“You never vote to raise taxes. It’s never the answer,” the programming kicked back in.

Then she repeated “zero-based budgeting” a few more times. You see where it went — i.e., nowhere.

Maybe it’s unfair to single out McNaught and Halseth. Perhaps the worst is yet to come. I shudder to think.

The Democrats are no picnic, either, starting at the top with gubernatorial hopeful Rory Reid’s self-made muzzle. They are hiding behind the stakeholders and their vision or talking in code about “revenue reform.” But they also don’t have purity test primaries; the Republicans do.

So here’s a thought: If you are going to run for office in a time of economic disarray, and you want to criticize your opponent for raising taxes, shouldn’t you have an alternative beyond mindless aphorisms?

But what do I know? I am sure plenty of people thought “Titanic” deserved the Oscar.