The first criticizes Angle for being rated the “worst Assembly member” in two of her four legislative sessions in Carson City, while landing second-worst and third-worst in the other two. Those ratings were based on a “poll” of fellow legislators, members of the media and lobbyists.

Oh, puh-lease. As a conservative who usually voted on bills out of principle, one can easily understand why Democrats would rate her low, as well as unprincipled go-along-to-get-along Republicans who wouldn’t know a conservative principle if it bit them in the butt.

Lobbyists? Are you serious? In order to get a high ranking from lobbyists, you pretty much have to kiss their….er, rings and do what they want you to do, regardless of core beliefs or what your voters want. Being ranked “worst” by lobbyists should earn you a Merit Badge, not criticism.

And is it really all that shocking that a “poll” which included members of the media would show that the Legislature’s most conservative member was judged to be the “worst” member? I mean, come on.

And if you still don’t think there’s an anti-conservative bias in this “poll,” consider the fact that the “worst senator” from the 2009 legislative session was Barbara Cegavske, the most conservative member of the Senate, and the “worst assemblyman” was Ty Cobb, the de facto leader of the seven-member Conservative Caucus during that session.

The second unfair criticism leveled at Angle is for not getting many of her bills passed. And that, too, is bull.

Somehow legislators got it in their heads that to be considered “successful” in Carson City you have to get bills passed. It doesn’t matter if the bills are any good, or relevant or substantive. Just pass….something. Anything. Which is why you have legislators proposing stupid bills such as naming an official state bug or changing the mandatory life-vest age from 12 to 13.

I suspect that Angle’s bills had a lot more meat on the bones, along with a strong conservative flavor. Is it any surprise that such bills were routinely killed by the Democrat majority which ruled the roost during all of Angle’s four terms in office?

The conservative Republicans who elected Angle to represent them for four terms in the Legislature didn’t elect her to pass meaningless bills; they elected her to champion and fight for limited government and lower taxation. To that end, she represented her constituents quite well, thank you very much – despite what liberals, RINOs, lobbyists and members of the media thought.

• You are a relative unknown in Nevada politics, and apparently politically inexperienced. Why did you decide to ‘cut your teeth’ politically by entering the Attorney General’s race? What campaign training/experience have you had?

I am running because maybe I have more courage than sense. Apparently, none of the “substantial” Republican lawyers in Nevada were willing to go up against Masto, certainly in part because of her connections, even high up in the GOP. Maybe Brad Coker of the Mason Dixon poll was right when he suggested that the GOP was giving Masto “a pass.” I filed at the last minute of the last day because no other conservatives had filed. Somebody had to challenge Masto.

The fact that I am relatively unknown is also a positive because it also means that I do not owe political favors to anyone. I have the expertise, training and temperament to enforce Nevada’s laws, as they are written, equally, fairly and without bias.

As for political experience, I have been a campaign volunteer in races too numerous to list, but which include Paul Laxalt, Bob Dole, Bush 1 and 2, state and local offices while I lived in California.

I have also served as parliamentarian to state and county central committees in California and Nevada.

• What are your qualifications for this position?

First and foremost, I am a regular guy, with an excellent education. When folks hear that I was a carpenter for 26 years and then went to law school at age 45, they know implicitly that I understand the pressures, needs and desires of all the rest of the regular people.

I have an excellent education: Bachelor’s in Legal Studies, Masters in Public Administration and a law degree from the University of San Francisco. Not bad for a working stiff.

I have an incredibly broad base of experience: working man, businessman, churchman, and sportsman. Specific to the Office of Attorney General, I worked in a large firm in San Francisco for about 5 years which is comparable in size (110 lawyers), so I have practical familiarity with large practice management. I also clerked in the public sector for the Port of San Francisco and the City Attorney’s of San Francisco, so I know a thing or two about the difference between being “busy” and being “productive.” My years in the private sector have ingrained a work ethic based upon value, service and competency.

Ms. Masto certainly has experience, but it is all the wrong kind: she has spent nearly all of her working life in the public sector. And her level of experience when she took the office of AG pales in comparison to my level of life experience on my first day in the same office.

• Explain your disagreement with how the current Attorney General handled:

a. The Brian Krolicki charges – Ms. Masto showed an incredible lack of sophistication in bringing the charges that she did. Either she thought no one would think it was a hack job for Harry Reid, or she had no clue about how to make it not look like a hack job. I am not sure which is worse.

b. The Bob Loux charges – Bob Loux was the lead man in Harry Reid’s crusade against Yucca Mountain. The lack of prosecution of Bob Loux looks like she wasn’t going to go after Reid’s man.

c. The refusal to follow Governor Gibbons’ request to file a lawsuit in regards to the Federal Healthcare bill – I marvel that someone of her young age had the audacity to defy the Governor. Again, it looks like she was not going to challeng her benefactor, Harry Reid.

• What is the role of the Nevada State Attorney General? How has the current AG veered from this definition? Explain.

According to the statutory job description, the AG is the lawyer for the State and the People. Masto has certainly failed to be the lawyer for the People, as is evidenced by the culture in the Office of disdain for the average citizen. The list of examples is too long to go through here.

And Masto hasn’t done a very good of a job being the lawyer for the State. The Office of the AG wastes millions of dollars (unaccounted for) on mindless litigation. She sits on the Board of Prison Commissioners and the prisons are a mess. Masto hasn’t acted against the banks that are not paying the real estate transfer tax and recording fees. Masto stood by (or even helped) when Steve Wynn got away with stealing the tips of the dealers in his casinos. The list goes on and on, but the easy inference to make is that she is protecting the rich and powerful.

• What would be your #1 priority upon being elected? Would this priority differ depending up who is elected Governor?

My #1 priority would be to reform the culture of the Office of Attorney General into being a service-oriented, effective and efficient law firm for the People and the State. I will have to find ways to work with those who share my vision and work around those who will certainly try to undermine me. This priority is not dependent upon who sits in the Governor’s office.

• Are there any circumstances under which the AG would have the legal right to defy a Governor’s request/order?

Not that I am aware of.

• What role, if any, should the AG play in the immigration issue?

As the chief law enforcement officer, the AG can and should exert pressure on local law enforcement to step up enforcement of federal immigration laws, with NO EXCUSES. All government agencies can and should begin requiring valid immigration documentation before providing services. Additionally, the AG can and should exert pressure in ICE to step up deportations of illegals who are in custody. As for legislative action, there is virtually no chance that a Democrat-controlled legislature will ever pass legislation comparable to the Arizona laws.

• Do you believe you have a realistic chance of beating the incumbent, Democrat establishment candidate? Why? How? How much money do you think it will take and do you have those financial resources to do so?

I have a realistic chance of winning because Ms. Masto has such high negatives in the public perception. No doubt, her current lead in the polls would lead her to believe that my candidacy is not a present threat. But the tidal wave of discontent among conservatives raises the possibility of a surge at the polls that can carry me over the top. However, the IAP candidate, Joel Hansen, may pull conservative votes that I will need to be victorious. And just last week, Mr. Hansen called me and asked me to withdraw. Such a move shows just how out-of-touch Mr. Hansen is with political reality.

As for the actual votes needed to win, any total in the range of 250,000 would clearly be extremely competitive. In 2002, Brian Sandoval won the AG race by a landslide with 296,471 votes. Of the 120,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, I got nearly 70,000, just 600 or so less than Sharron Angle. I also won every county, including Clark County where I spent no funds at all. By virtue of my tireless personal campaigning and the resulting connection with regular working people throughout the state, Democrats and Republican, union and non-union, I am pulling votes away from Masto that she cannot replace.

Fund raising is everyone’s bane this year and the lack of substantial support has clearly hampered my efforts to get my name before the voters. At the present, a mere $10,000 would allow me to get the rudimentary bases covered with signs state-wide. Beyond that, it is my plan to use radio ads in the last month of the campaign to point people to my website where they can learn more about me and my campaign. The cost of a radio campaign starts at about $10,000. I have volunteer consultants working on hardening my website to cyber-attack and guaranteeing the necessary bandwidth to handle the last minute crush of website hits. This was an issue in the primary which has become a lesson learned.

As for television ads, while I have ads ready to produce, the cost of airtime is clearly out of reach at this time.

I spent all of my personal resources on the primary, so I am utterly dependent upon outside support.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows the candidates tied with 45% of the vote each. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate and six percent (6%) more are undecided.

Reid and Angle were tied two weeks ago at 47% a piece.

Earlier this year, Reid was considered to be one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents. He picked up just 39% of the vote following Angle’s primary victory but has seen his own numbers improve to 41% in late June, 43% in early July, 45% in late July and 47% in mid-August. This is the first survey since Angle’s victory which failed to show an increase in support for Reid. However, the current numbers match the average of the last three surveys suggesting a level of stability has entered the race.

For Angle, the numbers have been heading in the opposite direction. The GOP nominee attracted 50% of the statewide vote following her primary victory in early June. That fell to 48% later that month, 46% in early July and 43% in late July. The 47% support she received in August represented the first time her support had increased since the primary. As with Reid, her numbers appear to have stabilized.

The race remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings.

When leaners are included in the new totals, Reid attracts 50% of the vote, while Angle picks up 47%. Two weeks ago, Angle held a small 50% to 48% edge over Reid among leaners. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.

Early in any campaign, the numbers without leaners are generally more significant. Later in a campaign, the numbers with leaners matter more. After Labor Day, Rasmussen Reports will report the numbers with leaners as the primary indicators of the campaign.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Nevada was conducted on September 1, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Angle’s supporters now say they are certain of their vote this November, up seven points over the past two weeks. Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters who back Reid say they are certain of their vote.

Angle is backed by 83% of Republicans while Reid is supported by 78% of Democrats in the state. The candidates are in a virtual tie among voters not affiliated with either major political party. Platinum Members can review full demographic crosstabs.

Like voters in the rest of the country, Nevada voters put the economy first when it comes to how they vote. Fifty-one percent (51%) say economic issues are the most important in determining how they vote. Fiscal issues come in a distant second with 16% who say they are most important.

Reid holds a 56% to 38% lead over Angle among voters who consider economic issues to be the most important. Angle holds a nearly seven-to-one lead among voters who put fiscal issues at the top of their list.

Reid is viewed Very Favorably by 25%, but Very Unfavorably by 43%.

Angle’s reviews are 18% Very Favorable, 38% Very Unfavorable.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Nevada voters are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, which is only slightly lower than results found nationally. Fifty-seven percent (57%) in Nevada believe neither party’s political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Only 30% in Nevada believe their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job, while 44% disagree. While 37% say their representative deserves to be reelected, a plurality (45%) disagrees.

Though only 19% of Nevada voters have ever attended a town hall meeting with their congressmen or senator, 69% think the politicians at the meetings should listen to the views of their constituents, rather than explain legislation and issues. Sixty-six percent (66%) in Nevada believe most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think.

Eighty-six percent (86%) in Nevada say they know someone out of work and looking for a job, and 56% say the job market is worse today than it was a year ago.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Nevada voters now approve of the job President Obama is doing, but 50% disapprove. These ratings are slightly higher than Obama’s job approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Take the latest example of Nevada Democrat Congresswoman Dina Titus, whose campaign saw fit to pull out of context the quote of her opponent, Nevada State Senator Joe Heck.

Heck said, “”The role of Congress is not to create jobs, it is to set the conditions under which the private sector creates jobs.” So, government should get out of the way, and let the private sector do what it does best.

Heck continued, further confirming this point, “And you do that through a stable, fair, predictable tax base, you do that by not pursuing onerous regulations on small, medium and large businesses. And that is where we need to get back to, that limited government that sets the conditions for the private sector to thrive.”

But the only part of the full quote that survived the ad that the incumbent Congresswoman used was “The role of Congress is not to create jobs”. The clip stops there, and then the narrator says, “Sen. Heck doesn’t get it.”

Actually, he does. Heck wants government to lower taxes and repeal regulations that prevent businesses from expanding and creating more jobs. Congresswoman Titus, on the other hand, voted for the jobs-killing ObamaCare and the Waxman-Markey legislation capping carbon emissions and increasing energy prices.

Titus has doubled down on her quoting out of context, again saying of her opponent, “He says it’s not the responsibility of Congress to create jobs and I believe it’s very important for Congress to create jobs, especially when unemployment rates are so high.”

As if that was not enough, the ad said “Heck signed a pledge to protect tax loopholes giant corporations use to ship our jobs overseas,” citing an Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) pledge. Only, the ATR pledge has nothing to do with jobs being shipped overseas, it’s a pledge against raising taxes at all.

But the malicious campaign does not end there. As reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal, “The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has spent about $700,000 on ads that recycle a dubious claim that says in the legislature Heck voted against a vaccine for cervical cancer and that he wants to privatize Social Security.”

Only, reports the Journal, it’s not true: “In reality Heck voted against a mandate requiring health insurance providers to cover a specific brand of vaccine against HPV, which can be a precursor to cervical cancer. And his Social Security plan involves a proposal to allow new enrollees to choose how their money is invested, while keeping employer contributions in the current system. The new enrollees could also keep their money in the current system if they wished.”

There’s no indication yet if the misleading claims against Heck will have any impact. But it does show the lengths the establishment will go to in order to keep a hold of power.

(Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.)

With another failed attempt at recovery under their belts, Titus and her friends are facing a bruising uphill battle to re-election this November. With unemployment at an unacceptably high 9.6 percent and way above the Democrats’ once promised eight percent, Titus and Washington Democrats have officially run out of excuses. Their trillion-dollar stimulus failed to produce jobs and their runaway spending spree has left the nation in debt, leaving their Democrat majority up for grabs this fall.

“As summer recess comes to an end, it’s time for Dina Titus to face the music and the consequences of her failed economic policies,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “After being buried under mountains of debt and facing crushing unemployment each month, Nevada voters are ready to send Titus and her out-of-touch Washington friends a message this November: They’re tired of this jobless recovery. With time running out and Titus out of excuses, her “recovery summer” is quickly turning into an autumn of discontent.”

Dina Titus is facing the fight of her life as November quickly approaches, and she is not alone:

“’But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed ‘Recovery Summer’ has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.” (Larry J. Sabato, “Sixty Days to Go,” Sabato’s Crystal Ball, 9/02/2010)

“Simply put, Democrats find themselves heading into a midterm election that looks as grisly as any the party has faced in decades. It isn’t hard to find Democratic pollsters who privately concede that the numbers they are looking at now are worse than what they saw in 1994.” (Charlie Cook, “No Help On The Horizon For Dems,” National Journal, 9/01/2010)

With an already struggling economy, uncertainty about the Democrats’ looming tax-hikes is contributing to the nation’s unemployment problem.

“Congress’ inability to make a decision about the fate of Bush-era tax cuts is contributing to the unemployment crisis facing the country, according to the Labor Day 2010 report by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

“‘Small businesses are America’s job creators, responsible for 60 percent of the net new jobs created in the last decade,’ the report states. ‘But uncertainty about looming tax hikes has stunted employment growth and until Main Street begins to hire, the unemployment rate will remain unacceptably high.’” (Jay Heflin, “Uncertainty of Bush tax cuts affects hiring, study states,” The Hill, 09/02/10)

Titus’ time is running up as Nevada families continue to ask: Where are the jobs?

My name is Ilario Pantano, and I’m a combat veteran of two wars that has succeeded in small business and authored a best-selling book. I’m a constitutional conservative and I’m running for Congress to retire an entrenched politician who does the bidding of Nancy Pelosi, liberal lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington. I’m confident that I can win this race if I have your support behind me. But before I tell you why, I want to share with you my story.

I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at 17. I fought in the first Persian Gulf War and I became a Marine Sniper and trained with militaries around the world. I left the Marines as a sergeant, and went to college and built a career. I was living the American dream. Then September 11th happened.

I immediately re-enlisted with the Marine Corps, graduated from Officer Candidate School, and deployed to Iraq. And it wasn’t long after that I experienced an event that would forever change the way I look at life. During one of the bloodiest phases of the war, I was forced to open fire and kill two insurgents. I received the praise of my commanders, and I never once doubted that I had done the right thing. But a few months later I learned that a man from my platoon, whom I had demoted, falsely reported the incident.

I was accused of the premeditated murder of two terrorists and faced a death sentence, if convicted. The national media immediately portrayed me to be a trigger-happy rogue Marine, and they never once suggested that my actions could have been justified. But I always believed the truth would prevail, and after a thorough investigation, it did. I was cleared of all charges and am proud to have served my country honorably.

Since announcing my candidacy I’ve been attacked by liberals from across the United States. The liberal blog Daily Kos even called me a “Jack Bauer Republican.” But the critics couldn’t be more wrong and I tell each of them, “I went out to do a dirty job for my country and in the process I got jammed up. I never broke with my Corps. I never broke with my country. I never said I was a victim. I took responsibility. I killed men in combat and if some don’t like it, don’t send men to war.”

As I am attacked by liberals from across the nation, I need conservatives to stand with me. I’m running for Congress because I can’t stand idle and watch Nancy Pelosi and her liberal cronies destroy the country I was willing to die for. As an infantry officer, I never took my men into a battle without a plan for victory. I’m entering this battle because I know I will win. But only if I can count on your help.

Will you stand with me and fight for this country we love by following this link and making a contribution to my campaign?

Democrats, like my opponent, are the middle-men who clear the way for the Pelosi radicals. It’s up to you and me to stop them. My opponent twice voted to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House and he is enabling her socialist schemes to bury Americans and their freedom under a mountain of debt. I’m challenging him because like you, I believe America is going in the wrong direction and fast.

I know how to fight and I know how to win. My opponent may have the cash advantage in this race – left-wing special interests groups like the trial lawyers and Union bosses are bankrolling his campaign – but I have the strength of my convictions that comes with serving a just cause.

And with your immediate support, we can get my strong constitutional conservative message on the airwaves and make sure every voter in the district knows who I am, what I stand for and what I will do when I get to Washington.

So stand with me today and help me deliver a victory for conservative principles.

Semper Fi.

(Ilario Pantano is the Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District and will be the special VIP guest-of-honor at September’s First Friday Happy Hour in Las Vegas)

But that’s not what happened in Carson City that year.

Regular readers know the scenario: The Legislature passed every budget except the one that funds K-12 education, which couldn’t be passed until an $833 million tax bill was also passed, so the budget would balance. A 15-member contingent in the Assembly, led (in effect) by then-Assemblyman Bob Beers resisted the taxes, thus denying majority Democrats the tw0-thirds vote they needed to pass it.

The session ended, and a special session was called. It also ended without a resolution. Things dragged on as yet another special session was called. The new fiscal year started, and still there was no schools budget. Then Gov. Kenny Guinn ordered his then-Attorney General, Brian Sandoval, to sue the Legislature to get lawmakers to do their jobs. The state Supreme Court ruled — in one of its most infamous and poorly reasoned decisions, Guinn v. Legislature, later meekly withdrawn — that the Legislature could raise taxes with only a simple majority. The decision was rightly criticized, and Angle and some of her fellow Republicans sued to overturn it in federal court.

The stalemate was finally broken when then-Assemblyman John Marvel switched his vote to yes, enabling the taxes to pass. The Republican lawsuit went nowhere.

Now, while it may correctly be said that Angle’s vote against taxes delayed the funding of schools, it may not be said she fought against the constitution’s requirement to give kids a public education. She never did any such thing. The only thing Angle wanted — and, to an extent, it was what everybody in Nevada wanted at the time — was for the state Supreme Court to balance two seemingly conflicting provisions in the constitution, one requiring the Legislature to pass a schools budget, the other requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. This is entirely reasonable (in fact, it was ultimately the Legislature that harmonized those provisions, in spite of the state high court).

No one at the time — not Angle, nor Beers, nor any member of what came to be alternatively known as the “Mean 15″ Republicans in the Assembly — ever said a word about not funding schools at all. They never came out against the constitutional provision calling for all Nevada children to get a free public education. They simply wanted to fund schools without raising taxes, by making cuts elsewhere in already-passed budgets. This was about taxes, not schools.

I covered the 2003 Legislature, and I strongly disagreed with those holdout Republicans. (Then again, I strongly disagreed with the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Guinn v. Legislature, and supported the lawsuit to overturn it.) I supported raising taxes back then, and stand by that view, which means I disagree strongly with Angle on the issue. But I also know what Angle did, and didn’t do, back then, and she did not fight”…against the requirement that all children have the opportunity to obtain a public education.”

Somebody tell us why a US Senator from the state of Nevada, who can’t stand the smell of tourists and who has no issue with the President telling companies and conventions that visiting Las Vegas is frivolous, has even a double digit approval rating?

This man, Harry Reid, has no interest in the success of Nevada and is about to prove it by backing the two initiatives I mention above. If that doesn’t make you pick up the phone and the checkbook for Sharron Angle, maybe the next rumor will…

From the rumor mill with some background information: Senator Harry Reid backed the Maglev train, a 269 mile train from Las Vegas, NV to Anaheim, CA. American Magline Group, working with the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, has received government and stimulus funding with the help of Harry Reid, 45 Million dollars of which were designated for an environmental impact study for the Maglev project.

Meanwhile…the Desert Xpress, a privately financed initiative to build a high speed passenger train from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV was plodding along. The Desert Xpress has a lower cost of construction per mile and a higher return on investment than the Maglev train, lower even than most light passenger rails in the US. The Desert Xpress project may look forward to the creation of as many as 90 thousand jobs between Las Vegas, NV and Victorville, CA.

As of now, the Maglev Train project appears stalled and rumor has it that Harry Reid intends to announce (the end of September) that he fully supported the Desert Xpress project and takes full credit for the creation of 90,000 jobs. When it happens, will somebody please ask Harry what happened to the $45 Million?

Action is Brewing would like to point out today that the notion of Harry Reid taking credit for free market enterprise, competition, and privately funded initiative is nothing short of ludicrous. The government project grew bloated, stalled, and fizzled. The people that experienced hardship and used the problems to create unique, creative solutions and improved processes are winning.

Harry Reid, go back to Searchlight, you’re no longer needed here; and don’t even consider trying to take credit for the Desert Xpress, we were born at night… not last night.

We are all in this together!

Good luck with that, hon.

Speaking of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, I ran into Republican state assembly candidate Kathy Njus at the GOP “Victory” headquarters last week. While I was there, she asked a volunteer to download and print out a copy of the Tax Pledge and signed it right there on the spot, with me as a witness.

Got some good pictures of the signing ceremony for her website, too.

At around the same time, another GOP assembly candidate strolled in….Ken Walther.

Assuming it was a no-brainer for a Republican candidate for state assembly to promise not to raise taxes, especially in this economy, Kathy assumed Walther would do just that – and invited him to similarly ink the Pledge with me as his witness.

Poor Kathy. She just didn’t know that there are some wishy-washy all-hat-and-no-cattle Republican candidates out there who are afraid to take a solid stand against raising our taxes.

Yep, Walther declined to sign the Pledge. But adding salt to the wound, he hid behind one of the oldest and lamest excuses ever coughed up for not signing the Pledge: natural disasters.

What if an earthquake hit Las Vegas, he blubbered? Or what if we’re hit with a terrorist attack that cripples our tourism economy?

Yeah, well….what of it?

If all the casinos on the Strip are knocked down by an earthquake, as well as thousands of other small businesses and homes, putting Nevadans out of work….Mr. Walther wants to reserve the right to raise taxes? On who?!!! I mean, this is truly the worst excuse I ever hear from fair-weather conservatives for not signing the Tax Pledge.

Seriously….New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina….and the way to help them recover would be….to raise taxes on the people and businesses who were destroyed by the natural disaster? My God, man, have you no compassion?

Sorry, Ken. You’re just scared to take a stand and stick with it. And as they say, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. You just want to give yourself weasel room….just like most of the other legislators currently misrepresenting the people of Nevada in Carson City. In my book, you’re no better than the Democrats.

The only saving grace here is that Mr. Walther is running in a district in which he has virtually no chance to win, so at least it will be a Democrat voting to raise our taxes next year and not another RINO.

Yesterday, the Dina Titus for Congress campaign attacked Joe Heck for signing the “no new taxes” Pledge with deliberately misleading information. The Pledge is used as a tool to protect against tax increases and to promote revenue-neutral tax reform. The lower taxes supported by the Pledge protect jobs. Tax increases don’t give anyone, anywhere a job.

It began with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee running ads in HI-01. Then the Mark Schauer campaign tried to malign the Pledge in MI-07 and the Democrat Party of WI took aim at the Pledge in WI-07. Now Dina “Taxus” Titus is misleading voters in NV-03 about the Pledge. It’s becoming something of a bad habit for liberals.

FactCheck.org’s Director Brooks Jackson wrote the following about Democrats’ attempt to distort the intention of the Pledge:

We find the ad to be false. The pledge only protects corporations from an increase in taxation overall. It explicitly allows elimination of any specific tax deduction or credit if matched dollar-for-dollar by an overall cut in rates. And it says nothing about jobs…This attack ad is false.

The Citizen-Patriot Journal in Michigan also deemed the attacks by Democrats on the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to be “not true.”

Here’s ATR’s official statement on Titus’ attempts to mislead voters on the meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Titus Campaign Launches “Blatantly False” Attack Ad on Joe Heck
Democrats try to distort Heck’s “no new taxes” promise

WASHINGTON, DC–The Dina Titus for Congress campaign recently issued a deliberately false attack ad on Republican Joe Heck for signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Their claims mirror the misleading charges made by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) earlier in the year – claims that the non-partisan FactCheck.org agrees are “blatantly false.”

The “No New Taxes” Pledge commits a signer to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” By making this promise, Heck has taken tax hikes off the table — something Dina Titus has not done.

This is not the first time Democrats have tried to misrepresent the meaning of the Pledge. During the special election in HI-01, the DCCC ran misleading attack ads against the Pledge. FactCheck.org, a non-partisan “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics, responded by condemning the DCCC and agreeing that the ads were “blatantly false.”

Two weeks ago in Michigan, Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) made similarly incorrect claims about Tim Walberg and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The Jackson Citizen-Patriot, a Jackson, MI newspaper, deemed Schauer’s claims “not true.”

“Democrats are desperate to take voters’ eyes off of their dismal performance as stewards of our economy. That’s why they continue to roll out this disturbingly false claim about candidates and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Quite simply, there has been no improvement in the economy or in job growth since Democrats took over. They have nothing to show for themselves in the run up to November,” said ATR President Grover Norquist.

The idea behind the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is to protect against tax increases and to promote revenue-neutral tax reform. This is a concept that Democrats fail to understand as they continue to betray voters trust on the issue of taxes.

“Joe Heck has committed to never raising taxes on his constituents while liberal Dina Titus has left the door for tax hikes wide open,” continued Norquist.