For the past 20 years, Nevada gubernatorial campaigns have largely been an exercise in the mundane -- a well-funded favorite facing an overwhelmed challenger with little chance of an upset.

The 2006 race, though, has destroyed that template.

Not one, not two, but five quality candidates -- three Republicans and two Democrats -- filed for the opportunity to replace outgoing GOP Gov. Kenny Guinn, who must retire after two terms.

Surviving the primary were Republican Jim Gibbons, a five-term congressman from Reno who previously served in the Assembly, and Democrat Dina Titus, a UNLV political science professor who is also minority leader of the state Senate.

The campaign promised to offer voters two distinct choices -- the more liberal-leaning Sen. Titus against the more fiscally conservative Rep. Gibbons -- with the candidates focused on highlighting their differences when it comes to tackling the long-term issues that confront Nevada.

And then came Friday the 13th.

It would be absurd, at this hour, to analyze this race without mentioning the well-publicized claim by 32-year-old cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo that Rep. Gibbons -- while walking her to her car in a nearby parking garage after the two had joined others drinking wine at a restaurant while waiting out a rainstorm on the evening of Oct. 13 -- threatened her and pinned her up against a wall.

Partisans for Rep. Gibbons have been quick to brand Ms. Mazzeo an opposition "plant" -- though there's no evidence of that, and surely a set-up would have included more detailed and salacious accusations. On the other hand, those who favor Sen. Titus seem anxious to believe or imply Ms. Mazzeo has made charges against Rep. Gibbons which in fact she has never made.

So inarticulate was Ms. Mazzeo in her multiple cell-phone 911 calls that night that she could not even explain where she was, and it took police more than an hour to find her. When they did, they neither saw nor heard any evidence of an assault. Police say they found her obviously drunk, but that she was not cut or bruised; her clothes were neither torn nor in disarray. Rep. Gibbons says she stumbled as she walked in the garage and he caught her.

What does this incident tell us about Rep. Gibbons and his campaign? At best, he showed bad judgment.

It also shows the great weakness of the strategy of campaign guru Sig Rogich, which was to keep Rep. Gibbons -- never particularly articulate -- out of situations in which he would have to think quickly on his feet. When circumstances called for Rep. Gibbons to be open and field all questions with self-depreciating frankness to clear the air -- as Arnold Schwarzenegger did so ably when confronted with similarly timed charges of gropesmanship during his 2003 gubernatorial campaign -- the "default setting" which saw him unwilling to provide answers to reporters only gave this story "legs," making it appear that Rep. Gibbons had things to hide.

Against this backdrop, voters must still decide on Nov. 7 whether Rep. Gibbons or Sen. Titus would make a better governor.

Dina Titus has for decades typified brazen defiance of the separation of powers clause of the Nevada Constitution, drawing executive branch pay as a professor in the university system, then making policy decisions in the legislative branch. She opposes merit pay for teachers and embraces vastly expanded big-government solutions for every perceived problem, from cancer and stem-cell research to full-time kindergarten all the way down to tax incentives designed to manipulate public support for "alternative" energy and hybrid automobiles.

Sen. Titus has devoted a great deal of energy combating the charge that she's a big spender who can't "say no to a tax." The Gibbons campaign has dubbed her "Dina Taxes." In response, the Democrat points to her work on property tax relief during the 2005 legislative session.

But that's a pretty skimpy resume for a liberal lawmaker hoping to re-position herself as a fiscal watchdog. There is simply no question that Dina Titus would be more inclined than Jim Gibbons to embrace massive increases in spending and the size of state government -- all of which will eventually require higher taxes.

As for the looming budget surplus, Sen. Titus argues for using any extra money on education. But spending one-time revenue on ongoing expenses can create long-term budget woes. Rep. Gibbons, meanwhile, proposes using any surplus for "one-shot" items, such as highway construction, that won't increase baseline spending.

Rep. Gibbons was the author of the constitutional amendment mandating a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature for any tax hikes. He earned the wrath of the Guinn administration when he criticized the governor's record tax package in 2003. And -- in stark contrast to his opponent, a public employee -- Rep. Gibbons vows to tackle the vital issue of the state's unfunded liability surrounding government worker pensions and retirement health benefits.

"We cannot afford to continue on this path without bankrupting the state," he said, explaining why he favors "a review" of public-sector heath care subsidies and protecting taxpayers by transitioning public employee retirement programs from defined benefits to defined contributions.

We will likely never know the whole truth behind the Mazzeo controversy. At this point, we believe voters would be best served by making their choice based on the issues, rather than on what might or might not have happened in a Las Vegas parking garage. We support Jim Gibbons for governor.