Gibbons, the mixed-message master, might get a clear signal from donors

Miscommunication in the world of politics is pretty common, whether deliberate or accidental. Name calling isn’t exactly unknown either. When Democrats say Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons deceived them, it’s duly noted.

But as more Republicans lash out at Gibbons, it suggests a pattern of deception on the governor’s part or at least a failure to communicate. Reno Mayor Bob Cashell called Gibbons a liar. Sen. Bill Raggio said Gibbons misled him. Because both are Republicans, partisanship can’t be blamed.

It seemed time to ask the governor: Do you have a communication problem?

“I don’t have a communication problem; I think they’ve got a memory problem,” he said Wednesday, the day before vetoing the state’s budget and tax increases to fund it.

Cashell, no novice to politics, knew his harsh language would grab headlines. He was angry because Gibbons decided to veto Senate Bill 201, which would increase the motor vehicle fuel tax in Washoe County and had the prior approval of 55 percent of Washoe County voters in an advisory question.

Cashell relied on Gibbons’ earlier statements he would support tax increases approved by voters.

But Gibbons vetoed the bill, contending the word “tax” was not in the advisory question so voters might not understand they were voting for a tax. Guess he didn’t figure Washoe County voters are very smart. Because it was obvious his veto would be overridden, the veto was merely a statement, just like his budget vetoes. Yes on symbolism. No on substance.

Being called a liar by the Reno mayor was “a very, very unfortunate choice of words,” the governor said because he never had a specific conversation with Cashell about the bill.

Gibbons reiterated his position: If voters approved a tax increase, “I would not stand in their way; I’ve always maintained that.”

Gibbons insisted he never told Cashell he would sign the fuel tax bill. He only promised not to stand in the way. But vetoing SB201 did stand in Cashell’s way.

Example two: Raggio said Gibbons misled him when he said he would support the hotel room tax bill. Raggio, no stranger to nuance, believed Gibbons would sign the bill. Gibbons refused. It became law without his signature. Yes on symbolism. No on substance.

Example three is easier to dissect because there is television video, so no one is relying on memory of what was said, implied or inferred.

Gibbons insisted to me that he simply told television reporter Jonathan Humbert he would “consider” furloughs for state employees as an option to a salary cut.

But the KLAS-TV, Channel 8 video shows Gibbons said, “It may come down to mandatory furloughs one or two days a week. I would prefer that. If you’re going to ask somebody to take a lower salary, give them something for it. Give them a day off.”

He said that would be his preference. He didn’t qualify it as something he’d consider. He sounded definite, even enthusiastic. Watch the video for yourself online.

Later, he learned of legal complications with furloughs and rejected that option.

Obviously, in that case, the memory problem was his.

When it comes to communication, Gibbons has been clear he is running for re-election. Absolutely. No hesitation.

Yet he acknowledged he hasn’t raised any money to speak of, just a piddling $50,000 last year. Democrats have raised millions for the next governor’s race. As governor, he is forbidden from raising any more until 30 days after the session, and then he’ll start fundraising.

With his dismal poll numbers, even before he turned into Governor No with his red veto stamp, what happens if contributors shut him out and refuse to contribute to an unpopular lame-duck governor?

“Then you have to deal with that,” Gibbons said. “I’ll make those determinations as I go along. I don’t think that will be the case, but if it is the case, then we’ll have to sit back and think about do we really want to pursue this and do we really want to struggle with limited resources to try and win this.”

It’s the first time I’ve heard him give himself wiggle room to change his mind about running.

Later this summer, when he starts dialing for dollars, the contributors who say yes or no apparently have his political future in their hands … well actually, in their checkbooks. Let’s see how they communicate with the Not-So-Great Communicator.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison/.