Do those who voted for Halverson have a clue?

To the editor:

To me, the most surprising result of Tuesday's primary election was that 10 percent of the votes cast for Clark County District Court, Department 23, went to Elizabeth Halverson.

There is no way anyone can convince me that 9,246 adult voters in Clark County believe that Judge Halverson was the most qualified of the three candidates for that position. To believe that is so requires the willing suspension of disbelief. (Hillary Clinton might be able to do that, but I cannot.)

Should I assume that 9,246 people do not have television sets in their homes, have not seen a local news broadcast, or have not read a newspaper and learned that Judge Halverson has been suspended from office for a year and has been brought before the Judicial Discipline Commission for possible removal from office?

It scares me that we have at least 9,246 people in this county who are clueless about analyzing facts and qualifications of all candidates for a political office before casting their votes that impact us all.

Voting into office the wrong candidate without checking facts, experiences and qualifications can have serious consequences for us all. Remember that in November.

S.G. Hayes

LAS VEGAS

Next move?

To the editor:

I was thrilled that District Judge Elizabeth Halverson got her comeuppance ("Halverson ousted," Wednesday Review-Journal), and surprised to read that many voters (as did I) specifically exercised their privilege at the polls to prevent her from regaining power.

I now eagerly await her next legal maneuver. She'll likely claim that the Judicial Discipline Commission proceedings against her prevented her from campaigning effectively -- kind of like killing one's parents and whining about being an orphan.

Keith Garber

LAS VEGAS

College budgets

To the editor:

I read your Tuesday editorial, "Regents in Fantasyland," with some frustration and surprise. You have jumped to some unfounded conclusions without ever bothering to speak with me or, to my knowledge, any other member of the Board of Regents. In that regard, please note the following:

The budget process for the Nevada System of Higher Education typically takes about nine months from start to final approval by the Board of Regents. It is an intense and collaborative process that involves not only the system staff that are charged with the final preparation of the budget, but more importantly draws upon the administration, faculty, staff and students on our campuses who will be directly impacted by the budget.

The system was near the end of that process when we were told to reduce the budget by at least 14 percent and perhaps 16 percent. In effect, we were asked to telescope a nine-month process into about six weeks, and -- to make matters worse -- do so at a time when many of those critical to the process might not be available.

I believed strongly that, rather than attempt to undo what had been done in the budgeting process and in order to get the information we require to make decisions as a board, we must allow that process to come to a close before discussing the prospect of additional cuts, which will take place at a special meeting on Thursday. In that way, we have a better picture of the system of higher education and its needs before we take any further action.

That only seems reasonable and prudent, and in furtherance of our obligation to the public and to higher education.

At last week's board meeting, we chose to eliminate about 20 requests from the campuses for "enhancements," a budget term for items not in our base budget, totaling almost $56 million. Nowhere in your editorial did you acknowledge that fact. While we believe that those enhancements are critical to our mission, we set them aside in light of the budget realities that we face now.

The base budget to which we gave tentative approval included spending for 2007-09 plus a factor for inflation. We also asked for funds to compensate the College of Southern Nevada and UNLV. Those institutions, because of the way in which the funding formula for higher education in Nevada operates, are unfairly deprived of revenue that is available to other institutions of higher education.

On Thursday we face a daunting challenge: We must address cuts of a large but an indeterminate amount requested by Gov. Jim Gibbons to build his legislative budget proposal. The board has to consider this impact on a system of more than 100,000 students and eight institutions.

We will do our best to accomplish that task, but we will do so after a full discussion with the board and in a manner that, in our best judgment, serves the state and higher education.

Michael B. Wixom

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS CHAIRMAN OF THE NEVADA BOARD OF REGENTS.

What a low-life

To the editor:

You can call me crazy, but I thoroughly enjoy watching disgraced public figures attempt to lie their way out of a dicey situation on national TV. Last week's "Nightline" interview with former Sen. John Edwards did not disappoint. The dishonorable Mr. Edwards continues to describe his illicit affair with Rielle Hunter as a "mistake."

Most of the members of the Bush administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Nevada's very own man about Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have already proved that even a fundamental amount of intelligence is not a basic requirement to hold public office. But Mr. Edwards has taken ineptitude and deception to new levels. I would now like to offer a lesson in English 101 as to the definition of the word "mistake" to anyone who would think otherwise:

Saying two plus two equals five is a mistake. If you order your steak rare and it arrives at your table well done, that is a mistake. If you leave your house during daylight hours wearing black shoes and white socks, that is a mistake. If you are playing a hand of blackjack and you hit your hard 16 against the dealer's 6, that is also a mistake.

What is not a mistake is if you are a presidential candidate running on a platform of honesty and you pay hush money to the woman with whom you are having an illicit extra-marital affair while your wife, the mother of your children, waits at home dying from terminal cancer. That is not a mistake, but rather the deliberate and willful act of a low-life who has to avert his eyes skyward so he can see the top of the gutter.

Jeff Silverman

LAS VEGAS

Finally, balance

To the editor:

Jonah Goldberg's most recent column, published in Thursday's Review-Journal, was an interesting read ("Obama without his script"). Finally, a sincere and deep look at the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, presenting the shallowness of this man, Barack Obama.

My deepest wish is that the many supporters of Sen. Obama read this well-constructed opinion piece. But I am certain the minute they read the headline and/or the first paragraph they frowned and turned over to the Las Vegas Sun, where they can always find marshmallow op/ed pieces, many extracted from The New York Times, and gushing letters to the editor that wallow in their unabashed bias for Sen. Obama, praising his very existence on Earth.

And I am certain that they deigned not to read the article on Page 9A of Thursday's Review-Journal, which indicated that Republican Sen. John McCain has a lead, 45 percent to 42 percent, over Sen. Obama in Nevada in the latest national Rasmussen Reports poll.

It would tax their brains to think their man, body surfing in Hawaii, isn't crushing the presumptive Republican nominee.

Finally, I wonder if Review-Journal columnists and Democratic demagogues Erin Neff and Geoff Schumacher ever read these articles. Then again, I think not; it would chill their blue blood.

George Pucine

LAS VEGAS