An interesting set of discussions have been taking place at both INP and No Gibbons that I, naturally, can not seem to get myself out of. At issue are the actions of gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons after an evening at a restaurant and a few glasses of wine. I’ll spare everyone the backstory. Go read it (that’s just the latest) if you need to know what’s being reported.
I want to get a few things out in the clear right away. This story, at this point, is not about domestic violence. It is not about treatment of women. It is about what a candidate for governor might have done to a specific woman at a specific time. But that seems to be what is leading the discussion at INP right now. That has to stop.
A new commenter named “IJ” has popped up with an agenda at INP. That agenda is to spread the word and philosophy of NOW. Almost immediately, IJ was on the comment board telling all of us that Gibbons was sent a series of questions about domestic violence issues by NOW and refused to answer them. That led to several comments back and forth by myself and IJ. IJ now seems interested in making sure I am aware of all the issues of domestic violence in Nevada. The latest of those pointed me to an article about a candlelight vigil to remember victims of domestic violence. That’s great, but what’s the point? I tried to leave a comment last night, and for whatever reason (Blogger) it didn’t post. My comment said something to this effect:
I see that you have an issue that you want to see in the limelight. There’s a place for you. It’s called Blogger. Check it out. Unfortunately, my thoughts on domestic violence are completely irrelevant to this conversation. This is not about domestic violence. It’s about the actions of Jim Gibbons, a candidate for governor, and an assault that may or may not have taken place. My position is that there are people on this site (you) using that event to attack him on an issue that you find important, but is actually not a part of the conversation. I also feel like people (you) are using this event to score points for his opponent. That’s disingenuous and irresponsible. If you’d like to continue discussing the matter of his run for the office of governor and how his actions might affect that, I’d be happy to engage. But if you’d like to continue to show your lack of understanding on the issue by continuing to talk about domestic violence, I’m done.
Here’s the actual comment:
You’re obviously not interested in real conversation about the race here. You’ve got an issue that is important to you. I get that. My feelings on domestic violence are of no consequence, and that’s not at all what I’m talking about, as I’ve stated already. There’s a place for people with an issue to discuss. It’s called Blogger. Check it out. It appears you have an opinon on what Gibbons didn’t do to address a possibly fake incident. I think you’re wrong. At issue here is not domestic violence, but Jim Gibbons’ handling of his campaign. Your comments continue to show you do not understand that.
This is a bit new for me. Normally, I’d have at least left it with an inflammatory remark. I didn’t. Everything I said in the comment was factual. Using an alleged assault to score political points worries me. Especially when we don’t even know the outcome. We’ll never know what happened, as is almost always the case. And since charges were not filed, it makes me think there is less to the story than people want there to be. You may not like that, but it’s true. It’s true that there may be less to it than you want. I address this point over at No Gibbons. I asked the good man JWH if he was posting about it because, as his blog’s title states, he’s against Gibbons anyway. If he wants to use the incident to score points, he should admit that. He may not be using it for points, as he tells me in a comment, but he may also never admit it, either.
This incident could mark an ugly moment in politics in Nevada. If Gibbons did in fact assault this woman, he belongs in jail for a little while, just like the rest of us would be. If he did not, and his story is true, his name has been tainted forever. And the cycle of using women as victims continues. It’s irresponsible and ugly. Either way. What seems to be the biggest obstacle to an honest discussion is the inability of this IJ person to admit there may be nothing to it. Instead, she (for some reason, I think it’s a woman) insists on keeping the domestic violence thing going, which might lead readers to think the assault is a given. Not so. I’m willing to admit that this may be far worse than we can imagine. But there won’t ever be a conclusion if nobody will openly discuss it. Insisting that the candidate’s response to the accusation be to answer NOW’s questionaire about domestic violence is a cheap ploy to take a possibly non-existent event and make the candidate look worse.
Also, let’s not forget that this is yet another attack on a candidate being perpetrated by an anonymous commenter. If anyone in the media and in politics in this state will ever take blogs seriously, this stuff has to be shut down.
Comments
Rory wrote:
This whole thing is a joke.
Are we talking about same NOW that bit their collective tongues when Bill Clinton was accused of rape and sexual assualt, and using interns as his personal cum repository? Or is this the same NOW that has been silent about the abuses of women in Muslim countries? LOL
NOW is less about protecting women, and more about promoting leftwing moonbat ideaology.
Puhlease.
Oct 20, 04:29 PM
Tom Clark wrote:
I too tried to respond to IJ on the INP site and had my long winded response disappear into the World Wide Web. I agree with you. NOW and the other groups that IJ claims he represents are simply trying to prop up the alleged victim in the Gibbons fiasco as their poster child. Great, let’s exploit drunken waitresses in the effort to get condoms in school and funding for aid to teenage mommies.
Well done on the online debate.
Oct 20, 05:22 PM
JWH wrote:
“If he wants to use the incident to score points, he should admit that.”
I’d be lying to you and lying to myself if I didn’t admit that I hope this crushes the Gibbons campaign to oblivion.
Here are my issues with the incident:
#1 He put himself in a horrible situation by admittedly being alone with the woman. He might as well have picked up a female hitchhiker… alone… in the dark… while it’s raining. How hard would it be for that female hitchhiker to claim assault or attempted rape? And, why would someone allow themselves to be in that situation to begin with?
#2 He admitted walking her to her truck after the both of were drinking. He must have forgotten he was a staunch advocate for the Stop DUI Caucus.
#3 Gibbons timeline doesn’t match up to what witness (Waitress Julie Vick) and Mazzeo told police. Neither do the Gibbons and Sig story.
Shouldn’t we as voters at least get the chance to ask Jim Gibbons why he allowed himself to get in that situation that night? Shouldn’t we get the chance to ask Jim Gibbons why he would walk an intoxicated woman to her truck while advocating the stoppage of DUI’s? Shouldn’t we at least study the timelines and facts before the election, not after?
Does a candidate’s character count anymore?
Oct 20, 07:01 PM
Cobbler wrote:
The Gibbons assault is not a given.
Cobbler
www.cobbgobbler.net
Oct 20, 08:06 PM
Ryan Jerz wrote:
JWH,
Number 2 is the biggest story here. That was a very bad decision, and what I meant in the comments on your site when I said that had he not been drinking, I doubt it would have happened. Maybe it would have, but I think that his drinking impeded better judgement there.
Number 3 is pretty typical. When you start scrutinizing stories it’s pretty rare that they match up. That’s why eyewitnesses are so unreliable. When things are happening, there isn’t as much importance on them as when they have to recall them. Often, the recall is wrong.
Number 1 is not something to even discuss. Perhaps, and I don’t know this, he is just a decent guy. That’s something I haven’t seen addressed except by Anjeanette. He isn’t the type to go around hitting on women. His reputation is pretty clean in this area, and it makes no sense for him to suddenly become a lecher. It’s possible, but unlikely. The guy is less than a few weeks from becoming governor. I’d like to think he’s a bit smarter than that.
The bottom line is that we don’t know. And since we don’t, it’s only responsible to explore the possibilities, but also to admit the most likely possibilities. The most likely to me is that nothing nefarious happened at all, but he was pretty dumb in offering to help her get in a car and drive. We’d also all be lying if we didn’t admit that we’ve done similar things ourselves regarding alcohol, friends, driving, and making bad decisions. It doesn’t make it right, but I’d be willing to bet it’s a situation he doesn’t get into again.
Oct 20, 10:33 PM
Tom Clark wrote:
Ryan, you sound like someone getting everything they can out of J-School ‘cause your dead right. Unfortunately you will probably end up in a market nuch bigger than the RGJ. Kudos.
Oct 20, 10:55 PM
JWH wrote:
“He isn’t the type to go around hitting on women. His reputation is pretty clean in this area, and it makes no sense for him to suddenly become a lecher. It’s possible, but unlikely.”
Most said the same thing about Mark Foley a month ago, eh?
Oct 21, 02:20 AM
Ryan Jerz wrote:
I think I can officially mark this as the end of JWH’s participation. Not only is that weak, but it’s blatantly inflammatory. Bring it strong, or don’t bring it at all. Please.
Oct 21, 04:43 AM
JWH wrote:
Dawn Gibbons said the same thing this morning in the RGJ: “You know my husband, and he would not do anything like that,”
Dawn knows her husband very well so I can expect something like that to come from her mouth. But, I don’t know Jim Gibbons and neither do you. We have no idea what Jim Gibbons does on his down time without his wife. I just think it’s pretty weak to use “he isn’t that type” as a way to minimize the damage and brush what occured that night under the rug.
Oct 21, 04:46 PM
Ryan Jerz wrote:
Everything I said there was my opinion. I made that pretty clear by allowing that possibilities of me being wrong exist. The ONLY talk of his actual character in this area was that he isn’t the type. There aren’t other stories popping up from women claiming the same thing. Usually there are. Even if they’re fake. Clinton is actually a prime example in this case. when he started denying stuff, people came out all over calling bullshit. Not this time.
And the Foley reference was not only a bad one, but it was also exactly what I’m saying is wrong with the conversation. A cheap ploy to connect Gibbons with a scumbag. Nice try, but I won’t stand for it.
Oct 21, 06:09 PM
CCB wrote:
IJ posts, I believe, as IronJawed on other blogs. Methinks she’s affiliated very closely with the Titus camp.
Oct 21, 06:38 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
Ryan Jerz is an all-around good guy who shoots photos and video, builds websites, and works in athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received a Masters Degree in 2007 from the University of Nevada, Reno's Reynolds School of Journalism.