It’s time once again to start things off with our Political Pop Quiz. Today’s question: Where did New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appear at a fundraiser hosted by Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun at the tail end of last week?

a. Greenspun’s Green Valley home

b. Playboy Club at The Palms

c. The Four Seasons

d. Culinary Union Local 226’s headquarters.

Remember when answering that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspaper! The correct answer is below. No peeking!

» You know, we’ve read a lot about how U.S. Sen. John Ensign is all mad and stuff about the firing of Daniel Bogden, the now-former U.S. attorney for Nevada. But despite a growing body of evidence that top officials in the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, lied their asses off, Ensign still supports them. (Some of those lies were told to Ensign’s well-tanned face, in fact.) In fact, Ensign even says that some of the other U.S. attorneys were fired for the right reasons.

Really? It seems the other U.S. attorneys were fired while they either refused to comply with political demands for investigations or after they’d engaged in investigations of political figures — who were Republicans. So what the hell does Ensign mean when …

…oh, that’s right. We forgot. Ensign is a tool, and thus dismissing a U.S. attorney who had the temerity to investigate and convict a Republican (or who refused to launch or speed up inquiries against Democrats) could very well be a good reason for a political firing.

Ensign is working feverishly to get the Justice Department to "restore" Bogden’s reputation. It seems to us he should be more concerned about his own.

» When will they learn? It wasn’t enough that capitalist enabler Tim Cashman found out too late that endorsing Gov. Jim Gibbons was bad for business, now minority community capitalist enablers have to learn the same lesson? The Latin Chamber of Commerce, which also endorsed Gibbons during his 2006 race with state Sen. Dina Titus, now seems to be regretting its stance.

It seems members of the Latin chamber want more money to go to education, especially helping students whose first language is not English. Members also want full-day kindergarten and look favorably upon that $1 billion iNVest program the school chiefs have whipped up.

While we can fault Gibbons for many things — and we do — this one is not his fault.

Gibbons was very clear on the campaign trail that he was against taxes and fees. That was, in fact, virtually the only issue Gibbons took a stance on in his battle with Titus. Everybody knew that.

So now, after endorsing the guy and finding out he’s not doing what you want, don’t come whining to the newspapers that mean ‘ol Governor Slush Fund won’t pass taxes (or even allocate much in the way of existing revenue) to things that would help your business (like roads) or your community (like better schools). The better candidate on those issues — hell, on most all issues — was Titus. But she wasn’t pro-business enough, was she? What do you think she’d be doing on education and roads right now?

The business groups wanted a seat at the big boys table, a chance for their voices to be heard. They just didn’t count on the fact that they’d also have to listen to the voice at the head of that table, a voice that’s saying — in unmistakable terms — "screw you."

But it’s not Gibbons’ fault, people. He was honest about his views. Now the various chambers have to live with them, for four more years or until the grand jury hands up the indictments, whichever comes first. Try to use the time to think about what you’ve done, and don’t make the same mistake again, OK?

» What the hell is up with Paul Willis?

What’s that? Oh, right. Paul Willis is the interim chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and apparently a good buddy of a guy who runs brothels but is under indictment.

Anyway, way back when, Willis railed against a Republican plan to move up the presidential caucus, saying it was "a gimmick and a scheme and a sham," and that it was "a lot of hype" and that "I don’t think myself that the Republicans should stoop to the gimmickry that the Democrats are doing."

Oddly, on the very same day as he said that, he also said the opposite to the Reno Gazette Journal. "Before today, I was skeptical and wasn’t too sold on the idea because I thought the Democratic caucus was more of a scheme and a gimmick," he said. "But it is becoming more and more apparent that this [caucus] would be positive for Nevada."

Now while it may appear that Willis suffers from a really nasty case of cognitive dissonance (leader of the "morality" party who’s friends with brothel owners; a "sham" and a "gimmick" that’s going to be "positive for Nevada") this is actually easily explained. He simply got out ahead of himself and spoke out of turn, until a senior person got his mind right. Happens all the time.

But this weekend, there was Willis, saying that a plan to move the Republican caucus up even further — to Jan. 19, when the Democrats will go to the polls — wasn’t worth the sacrifice.

(As our friend Chuck Muth has noted, Feb. 7 is a loser date. The nominee will no doubt be decided on Feb. 5, when a bunch of populous states will hold their elections, so even moving it to Feb. 5 simply guarantees Nevada will get lost in the shuffle. It was either move it to Jan. 19, and suffer the consequences, including the loss of delegates to the GOP convention, or leave things well enough alone and let the Democrats do their thing.)

Of course, Willis once again held the short straw, as it appears the Republicans are moving their caucus to Jan. 19, too.

OK, so maybe Willis just can’t read the rank-and-file that well. Happens all the time.

But then dude drops this one on us, in an Associated Press story by Capitol vet Brenden Riley: "We’re solidly in favor of moving the date again," Willis said. "The reality is that we are being compelled to do this by the Democrats. It is what it is. The objective is to do what’s best for the state and for the party."

Um, yeah, so what about it not being worth the sacrifice? Hello? Which Paul Willis are we talking to here?

The crazy one, as demonstrated by this final Willis remark from Riley’s piece. "Willis also said he had been unfairly criticized as an opponent of the early caucus, but that wasn’t the case. He said he only wanted to make sure that the proper process was followed."

Wow. Now that’s a heaping load of bullshit.

Where in the midst of "gimmick" and "scheme" and "sham" and "hype" and not thinking the Republicans should stoop to be with the Democrats has Willis said he was worried about the "proper procedure"? Nowhere, of course, since — like another great Republican leader, Dick Cheney — Willis is trying to invent his own personal version of history. And even though he’s taken both sides of the issue — twice — he still can’t manage to craft a consistent narrative.

We know the GOP has a plan to install some adult supervision, but we think party bigwigs should let Willis stay on, perhaps as spokesman. If we media types didn’t like the answer we got at 10 a.m., we could always call back at 2 p.m. for a diametrically opposed quote. Plus, with the Republicans’ national leadership bogged down in an unnecessary war and the state’s top two GOP officials facing no fewer than five scandals, competence would seem so out of place.

» And finally today, the answer to our Political Pop Quiz. Clinton raked in the cash at The Four Seasons hotel on the Strip. Half-credit if you said Greenspun’s home. There was a private dinner there, but that event was not a fundraiser.

Thanks for playing!