Still Wondering Why Brian Sandoval Did Not Make Mitt Romney's VP Short List?

Back in March, I told you that Mitt Romney would never be allowed to choose Brian Sandoval as his running mate. That very same day, Sandoval himself acknowledged that reality by indefinitely embracing the very 2009/2011 "sunset tax" deal that so angered Grover Norquist.

Now, we're seeing further confirmation that Sandoval won't land anywhere on Mitt Romney's VP Short List. And again, I told you why all the way back in March.

Funny enough, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) may have President Barack Obama (D) to thank the most for the turnaround in Nevada's gaming and tourism numbers. Thanks to the Recovery Act, the payroll tax cut, the Affordable Care Act, and the expansion of student financial aid, which were all policies President Obama championed and the bulk of G-O-TEA Congresscritters crapped upon, the national economy is improving. And as the national economy continues to improve, more Americans in other parts of the country will have more disposable income available to spend on a Las Vegas vacation.

So strangely enough, Brian Sandoval's good fortune is turning out to be Mitt Romney's bad luck. And both Mittens' campaign and the RNC are still trying to find a way to stop us from noticing the improving economy. [...]

So perhaps Brian Sandoval will ultimately be let off the hook somewhat as The Las Vegas Strip roars back to life... But he can't escape the fact that he at least owes some credit to President Obama and his policies that aided the national economic recovery. So Nevada Republicans shouldn't get too giddy just yet (even as Nevada Democrats try to figure out just how feasible running against Sandoval will be in the next two years).

And surely enough, Mitt Romney's campaign is now chiding swing state GOP Governors for touting economic progress in their states. Oh yes, he went there. Because of course, Romney knows his only chance of winning lies in blaming a bad economy on President Obama. And certainly, the G-O-TEA bloc in Congress is trying its hardest to sabotage the economy to benefit Romney.

However, Brian Sandoval is depending on an improving economy to bolster his argument that "no new taxes are necessary" to balance the budget. Actually, it may still not be enough to stop the AFL-CIO/NSEA corporate margin tax initiative. But then again, that's only the start of further progressive tax reform that progressives want to work on. And ironically enough, Brian Sandoval now has to hope that the economy bounces back and does so strongly enough to quiet the demand for major tax reform here in Nevada.

And funny enough, that's (another reason) why Mitt Romney can't afford to add Brian Sandoval to his G-O-TEA ticket.

Read His Lips, He Has to Govern

Last week, Governor Brian Sandoval reached an agreement with Amazon.com for Amazon to begin collecting Nevada sales taxes for all purchases made here in Nevada. It sounds simple enough. But beneath the surface, it's quite complicated.

Promising not to raise taxes — no how, no way, under any circumstance — might have seemed the smart political move for Brian Sandoval in 2010, when he was running in the Republican primary for governor.

But now that he’s running a state that is less than flush with tax dollars, he keeps bumping up against the line in the sand he drew as a candidate.

The latest is the agreement he reached with Amazon, under which the online retail giant will start collecting sales tax in 2014. Under the deal that Sandoval and his top staff personally struck with company executives during a meeting in the governor’s office earlier this year, Nevada will become just the seventh state to require the retailer to collect the tax.

The deal will be a $16 million-a-year coup for Nevada and was praised by the brick-and-mortar retailers as leveling the playing field with online companies, many of which don't collect the tax at all.

But it will also muddy one of his administration's talking points — that no Nevadan will pay more in taxes than they did when he came into office.

And that's something "Tea Party, Inc." will continue to scream about. Even in admitting the Amazon deal isn't really a "tax hike", Chuck Muth nonetheless complained that Sandoval was agreeing to yet another "tax hike". Once again, Nevada's "tea party" is mad as hell and refuses to take it any more... Even though these "tea partiers" can't even define "it".

OK, so maybe my last line was a bit harsh. But you know what's even harsher? Grover Norquist's tax pledge. For the last two decades, he's been boxing in Republican politicians across the country by forcing them to sign his no tax pledge, then threaten to turn them into rotten lying b-----ds if they cross him.

This is why Brian Sandoval is in a bind. He's been trying hard to erase his past of "tea party" flirtation by embracing what he had previously shunned and making the 2009/2011 "sunset tax" deal the new "middle of the road". But no matter how hard Sandoval tries to make the past go away, Grover Norquist and his Nevada henchman (Chuck Muth) always find a way to bring it back to the forefront.

This is why Sandoval has had to make so many backflips as of late. Even though Sandoval hasn't actually raised taxes, the Norquist-Muth tax pledge is so rigid and severe that even so much as a mere extension of a past tax increase, or an agreement with an online retailer to collect state sales taxes, leads to "The George Bush Dilemma". No wonder why Mitt Romney has had to shake his Etch-A-Sketch and veer hard to the radical right.

This is why Sandoval has to find excuses for what we once called "common sense governing". Because for Grover Norquist and company, "common sense governing" has become a crime. For them, even a corrupt "bailout happy" failed politician is better than an upstanding "moderate" who dares to cross their line on taxes.

Sorry, Sando. Grover Sez No VP for You.

Will Brian Sandoval soon be blaming the Nevada Supreme Court for dashing his White House dreams? Not too long ago, he seemed quite chummy with Grover Norquist, King of "Tea Party, Inc." But now, "King Grover" is calling Sandoval "a rat". Do I really have to tell you why?

The conservative organizer and anti-tax leader Grover Norquist raised eyebrows at a conservative gathering in New York last night for the invective he directed at Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican.

Norquist, the longtime president of Americans for Tax Reform, labeled Sandoval a "rat" for cutting a deal last year with his state legislature to extend 2009 tax increases he'd promised to end, a participant at the monthly Monday Meeting, an influential conservative gathering in New York, told BuzzFeed.

On the same grounds, Norquist dismissed the notion that Sandoval, a popular moderate Hispanic Republic in a swing state, could be Romney's running mate, the source said.

Norquist spokesman Jon Kartch didn't respond directly to a question about the "rat" comment, but said in an email: "What he did say was Sandoval refused to take the pledge in writing and did raise taxes."

Now you don't see me doing this often, but I have to correct Norquist and his spokesman in their misleading spin on what Brian Sandoval actually said and did. First off, let's talk about the pledge. While Sandoval didn't physically sign Norquist's stupid pledge, he fully embraced its "spirit" on the campaign trail as he took virtually the same position on taxes and the state budget as "tea party darling" Jim Gibbons. Last spring, he just parroted Norquist's and Gibbons' "no new taxes" nonsense while scores of Nevadans begged him to reconsider. Even late last month, his #1 R&R "juice man" "advisor" Pete Ernaut whined and complained about the various tax initiatives now being debated.

Seriously, that isn't "no new taxes" enough for Norquist? Apparently, not.

In fact, he's now dissing Sandoval not because he embraced "new taxes", but rather because he realized the Nevada Supreme Court left him with no realistic option but to extend the 2009 tax deal. I mean, that wasn't even "new taxes", but rather the package of taxes that several Republicans voted in 2009 to override Jim Gibbons' veto of. So now, just an extension of what had already passed with bipartisan support is now "new taxes" that must disqualify an attractive Republican Governor from an increasingly blue-leaning swing state from becoming the Republican Presidential Nominee's running mate?

Apparently, so. No wonder why Mitt Romney can't hold onto one consistent position on any issue. And no wonder why the G-O-TEA faction in Congress can't agree on any realistic budget.