Sharron Angle's transformation rolled forward again today, with the rewriting overhauling steamrolling of the Nevada Senate candidate's previous Tea Party-bait positions into something much more mainstream Republican.
Sam Stein of Huffington Post gives SharronAngle.com a very close read:
[T]he candidate has gone from calling for the "repeal" of "regulations that prohibit off shore drilling" to a position that is, simply put, the exact opposite.
"America's policy should be to enforce the rules and regulations currently on the books with respect to off shore drilling," her new site reads. "The recent oil blowout in the Gulf occurred because BP took a high risk approach in its drilling program while cutting corners, as opposed to the low-risk approach other companies also drilling in the Gulf have taken without incident."
Also missing: Angle's call to shut down the Department of Education and send nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. She still wants to privatize Social Security, or she puts it, offer "personalized accounts."
Leave a Comment:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the U.S. Constitution. The phrase was from an 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he explains how the Consitution protects religions from government.
C'mon, Rachel, listen more carefully to what Sharron Angle says before critiquing her goofy rhetoric. Here are some examples:
1) Angle actually said she was in favor of a "lockbox" for Social Security, while simultaneously talking about privatizing or personalizing Social Security. Someone should ask Angle about her lockbox idea and then spring it on her that she is in agreement with what Al Gore said in the 2000 campaign.
2) Angle wants to cut federal spending by doing away with No Child Left Behind and its unfunded mandates. How does cutting a program which isn't sufficiently funded by federal taxes reduce federal spending in a meaningful way? Angle's point is gibberish!
3) Angle's use of the phrase "second amendment remedy" is an overt threat for the violent overthrow of our elected government. Someone should ask Angle if the phrase can be turned on her in the unlikely event she gets elected to the U.S. Senate and people don't like the job she is doing.
One more thing, Rachel, in regards to your interview of Rand Paul ... Why didn't you scare the Republicans by letting him reveal his positions on closing Guantanamo, repealing the Patriot Act, closing overseas military bases, etc? You didn't have to hammer so much on his bizarre caveat to the Civil Rights Act because the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats caught on right away.
IIRCC, last night Rachel didn't say it was in the Constitution, but rather, in her astonished reply to the video of Angle's saying she's been misquoted like Jefferson about separation of church and state, Rachel referred to the First Amendment and recited a few words of that amendment. But I don't recall her saying it was in the Constitution at any point, nor did my quick review of the video find such a reference. Maybe you need to listen more carefully yourself.
She referred to the First Amendment and the Establishment Claus which is where Jefferson derived his statements. He was trying to explain that these were good things because they'd protect religious institutions from government oppression as well as the reverse. But I think the point was more about how odd it is for Angle to say Jeffersonwas misquoted like she has been. Sort've that comparing yourself to a civil rights leader weirdness that public figures do sometimes. And yes there are lots of things Rachel could say. There's always lots of things. I bet she often leaves interviews and thinks to herself how she wished she had said x instead of y. But she is a polite person and tries hard to be nice even if sometimes she gutter balls and joins the rest of us jerks. If I were in her shoes I'd just constantly make fun of anyone who said anything baseless- but that's why I'm not on television and she is. As for the Rand Paul interview...ugh you did watch the interview all the way through right? I am not saying that to be rude but the reason why they stayed on the Civil Rights Act for 20 minutes was because he would not give a direct answer. She was trying to get him to say does he support it or not and he wouldn't answer that question. I bet she had a lot of questions to ask him and she stated as much the next night. To be fair to her she gave him almost 10 minutes to speak un-interrupted and he still never answered her clearly.
Jon Ralston did make an oblique reference to the Gore - lockbox connection during his interview with Sharron Angle. Unfortunately, he didn't press the point.
You should take the time to go to Paul Ryan's page and read the actual "Road Map" material Ms. Angle is proposing. The "personalization of S.S." plan is ridiculous!! Esentially, if you opt for this plan you can deposit 1% of your first $10,000 and 2% of income over that for the year. A much LOWER percentage of our income than we are depositing now. While this might work well for the well-to-do, I can't see it helping our poor people very much. By the way, those are the caps or maximums you can deposit. This begins in 2022. In 2032 the percentages go to 2% and 4%. In 2042 the percentages go up again. Simplified, but essentially the plan. The OTHER part of this plan allows you to deposit in an account under an umbrella controlled by 5 "well-trained, educated" people who will then be able to invest your funds for you in utilities, mutual funds and so on, that are age appropriate to you. They do guarantee that you will get your annuity when you retire. But there is nowhere in the material that even alludes to you getting the profit from the investments. Anyway, read it.......
I have several questions, number 1 being who are these 5 people investing my money and who oversees THEM? Can anyone spell M-A-D-O-F-F ?
We all should dig a little deeper and get the FULL story before we defend or trash the candidates. This is serious stuff. Sounds good in an interview, doesn't it? If we continue to depend on election year hype we could very well end up in a very bad way. It's happened over and over and it will happen again if we let it.
You're referring to www.americanroadmap.org I take it. As you say, that's Paul Ryan's thing, though it does redirect to something on the GOP's web space. Has Angle officially signed on to that?
This is what it says on her site:
Just like in her interviews, she's taken out any reference to privatization. She's only talking about personalization. Which is a totally different concept. She's not talking about where to put the money - she's avoiding that question entirely. She's just talking about preventing other agencies from raiding Social Security funds and replacing them with IOUs... and hiding behind that concept. And if you claim she is still talking about privatization, she'll say she's being misrepresented, misunderstood, and smeared.
It's all spin, of course, but it has to be handled properly or else it'll just be spun more.
I think Rachel made the comment that Democrats should call Republicans out on the positions they hold that are obviously anti "small" people, or something to that effect. And she is so right. But I am tiring of Sharron Angle, she is so ridiculously out of touch, it is not funny anymore. She is one candidate that can probably continue to self-destructing on her own without our help.
I will never understand, however, why more democrats did not come out against former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke when he ran for numerous elected positions. It was a true shock. David Duke was a person, with highly prejudicial positions, that we had arguably, ethical duties to speak out against. He hid his hate rhetoric beneath craftily constructed covert language.
There was a challenge. Sharron Angle, is almost too easy. But yes, Rachel is absolutely right, we should call them out when we can.
I did not realize Angle was ahead in the poles. I think though, I would more point out her self-destruction than laugh at her, as laughable as it may seem. Always apreciated more by voters to run a clean campaign.
There's no separation of church and state until another religion might be encroaching THEN action must be taken. Look at Oklahoma, they just passed a law so no shia beliefs could be incorporated into law. Which I agree with but I agree with all religions being banned from incorporation into law. Cant pick and choose that's the reason our founding fathers came up with this great idea of separation of church and state.
People love to say we are a Christian nation, I disagree. We are a mixed nation of different beliefs. Even Christians bicker about interpretations. I don't want a bat-crazy teocon telling me her beliefs are right and what to believe, just like they don't want me telling them there bat-crazy teocons (even if I do).
As far as lock box for Social Security, she wants to faze out the current system and end it. She stated that and she can dance around it all she wants but its not hard to read her page.
Keep talking to your base Angle I'm sure their going to make up excuses for whatever gaffs and interview problems you have with real reporters. Your so misunderstood!
As ridiculous -- and blatantly hypocritical -- as Angle demonstrably is, don't forget one thing: she is slightly ahead of Harry Reid in the latest polls, and has a very real chance of becoming a United States Senator. Never underestimate the power of negative rhetoric, especially if it gets repeated over and over and over (and over). How many times have you seen the Fox Romper Room hosts and other conservative commentators talk about the "Obama/Reid/Pelosi" agenda/axis of evil/etc.?
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has Angle at a 52% chance of winning the election as of 6/28 (remember that what Mr. Silver tracks is chances of winning, not polling numbers). I look forward to seeing his new calculations now that Angle has been interviewed by a real journalist, but it is a mistake to think that a person cannot be elected U.S. Senator just because they are demonstrably utterly ridiculous. It has happened countless times, and will happen again.
Hello Rachel, I thought you may find this story interesting. Here in Orlando, Florida tea party is crumbling on its weight. Here is more to the story.
truly,
D. Solomon
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/07/tea-party-losing-members.html
Actually, the position Angle presented in the interview didn't sound too bad. I mean really, listen to it. She backtracks and says that she wants to give people the choice of receiving Social Security as we do today or investing that money into the free market. So in terms of retirement you can BUY INTO the government program OR choose PRIVATE companies which would be more expensive but probably give you a bigger bang for your buck. What novel! How brilliant! But wait, could it be...? Have we heard such an idea before? Could it be...perhaps...why yes! This sounds just like a PUBLIC OPTION ala (but not Allah) Social Security. And really, I have to applaud Angle's new position. It sounds like a GOOD IDEA. I'm sure she'd have been in favor of the Public Option in the Health Care Bill too. Oh...wait....
I really really really really wanted Ralston to force Angle to deal with that comparison. Like really really really.
Sorry, Rychon, but her position on SS shows that she doesn't understand the very basic idea of how SS works. Workers who are currently paying SS taxes from their paychecks are NOT putting that money away for their own retirement. They are paying for CURRENT retirees. In other words, my SS taxes are paying for my mom's SS check, not my future SS check. When I retire, my children's SS taxes taken from their paychecks to pay for my SS check. That is, unless Ms. Angle had her way. My kid, and millions of others, may choose to put their money in a private account, one that would be solely for them. If they did so, SS would collapse very quickly, and seniors and the disabled would quickly descend into poverty. She, and apparently you, make the mistake in thinking that SS is like a 401k or pension plan. It is not, as I state above.
Nor does it equate with the public option in healthcare reform. When you pay for health insurance, you are paying for your current and possible future needs, not those of the generation before you. My health insurance premiums don't pay for my mom, nor for my brother and his family. The public option would have done one thing: given those who currently have health insurance to buy it from the government, IF THEY SO CHOSE. There would have been absolutely nothing to force them to leave their current insurance provider if they were happy with them. It would also have provided insurance to those that can't afford it now, whether it is the millions of unemployed, or those with pre-existing conditions that often can't get insurance at any price. In other words, equating the public option in healthcare with privatizing social security isn't even close to being correct.
You're absolutely right. I was trying to poke fun at the fact that what Angle was proposing in the interview sounded identical to the Health Care Public Option. Simply because I make the comparison does not mean that I do not know what Social Security is. I was speaking purely in terms of what was coming out of Angle's mouth: the idea that you should be able to choose between a government system or a competitive private system. At its most base elements, she was talking about a public option. Is that really her vision for America? No. Is it really a good idea? No, for the reasons you described. However, as a general statement, I believe that government should have a role in the free market.
I'm not in favor of any kind of privatization of Social Security, for the record, and I was for the public option. I believe that whether or not Social Security is a good system, there are no ideas of changing or eliminating it that don't screw over a big chunk of our population. I am, however, quite in favor of pointing out ironies and hypocrisies.
Sorry. My sarcasm meter was on the blink! :)
Sharron Angle is a Fundamentalist in her religious views. Fundamentalists live in fear and promote fear. They are always ready to fight and consider guns as part of their power. Guns give them a powerful symbol. They have an astute anger with their government and consider an act of war as applicable to God's wishes.
They are literalistic where the Bible is concerned. They believe it was written by God, and every word is for them as followers. Ultimately, they are Old Testament oriented. They believe in Jesus, but have gotten away from his 'Good News' gospel. They like static laws and dealing with the poor, weak and hungry is not exactly their cup of tea. Pun intended.
AND, they have every intention of taking over the government, both federal and state. Under estimating them would be a huge mistake. They work like a cult. When they say they want their country back, they mean it literally. They see America as theirs. In their minds, they are the Christians in the proposed, Christian Nation. We must take them seriously.
Sharron Angle is dumb and stupid, but they don't care. She is one of them and she may win that election. She will serve her purpose for the movement. They want the presidency to be one, also. They are dangerous and determined. In their minds, you don't have to be smart. You just have to be loyal.
Ralston or Curic can expose Angle's ignorance and stupidity but it won't phase the election. It's the rest of us who are not getting it.
I really hope you are not equating gun ownership with fundie Xtian / Tea-Party crazies. I am a proud progressive Democrat. I live in Wyoming. I love Rachel and Obama. I am pagan. I am a tree-hugger. And I bet I own more guns than you do. And you (or anyone else) can have them when you pry them out of my cold, dead fingers. Have a great 4th! :)
Jo, why is it that any time someone proposes a sensible gun control law, the first response by gun owner is the one you just made, "you can have them when you pry them out of my cold, dead fingers"? To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed a complete elimination of gun ownership rights, or even anything close. The NRA vehemently opposed a law that would have required gun owners to have trigger locks on their guns. It had nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone, just making them safer from anyone but the gun owner being able to use them. The hyperbole of the NRA is unhelpful in making sure that reasonable laws that protect everyone and keeps their rights intact are enacted.
Jo Aelfwine, I have no idea how you got a threat to take your 'many' guns from "your cold, dead fingers" out of what I said about the power 'symbol' in the tea party. Guns do denote a sense of power. Granted? Public display of guns strapped on the hip, is an obvious attempt to 'speak' about that power. Granted? Unless you use your 'many' guns to replace your mind in a dialog about guns, then you have nothing to worry about when your hands are cold and dead. You can always put it into your will and have them buried in your cold, dead hands. It's called 'Freedom'. You know, the 4th of July, thing.
Most gun 'lovers' do not use their guns to display their fear of someone Else's power. I equate 'loving' guns as a tribal mindset from the brain stem, "old brain" to enhance the chances of survival, i.e.; food supply, clothing, and, of course, protection from wild animals and wild minds. Your 'love' of your 'many' guns is equitable to that criteria. I can see you in fringed leather and turquoise and silver; an artistic attitude for a different type of display more like a collection.
Have fun!!!!!! And, don't worry, if you're not a cavalier member of the tea party, I have no interest in your guns.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - there is a difference between "privatizing" and "personalizing" Social Security as she's explained them.
"Privatizing" means putting the money into the stock market.
"Personalizing" means giving everyone an individual account with money specifically earmarked for them that cannot be raided by other government agencies.
When I brought this up last time, others argued about the value of the IOUs being left in place and how much the long-standing systematic raiding of the Social Security general pool actually hurt the program. I'm not qualified to debate that.
But I think it is important to be fair and accurate in the reporting of her positions and statements.
That said, it's obvious she's been well-coached about this by experienced GOP spin doctors. I highly doubt that she's any more qualified than I am to debate the status of the IOUs and the solvency of the program. I should also note that the two positions are far from mutually exclusive (their venn diagrams hardly even touch). I strongly suspect, even if she's denying it now, that she still wants to privatize Social Security as well as personalizing it. And I certainly don't support her platform in any significant way.
I just think it's important to understand that the two words, as she's described them, are not synonymous.
She flip-flopped on privatization. She said she was in favor of it during the primary, and now she denies that stance. And she's playing a carefully-orchestrated shell game by substituting personalization. And every time someone comes after her about privatization, she's just going to duck behind personalization and claim that her views are being misinterpreted and misrepresented. And use that to try to make herself out to be the victim.
Privatizing Social Security, was a brain blast from the last administration. Whether it was Bush or Cheney, is anyone's guess. But, whoever was behind it, is still behind it. People like Angle have no clue what that would do to the American life style. They just see a government program that helps someone besides the big market conglomerates. There's nothing in it for Wall Street, so we are suppose to change that to make it all about Wall Street. She's a puppet. Look for the other end of the strings. I think they will lead you to another puppet, but this one is beholden to Wall Street. Angle is just a little long nosed wooden doll committed to a cause she sees as Fundamental Religion. Christianity has left that building, but the signs are still up. Jesus, and his philanthropically life of love and giving has been replaced with brainwashing preachers living in mansions.
If we were to defer to the Robin Hood futurity, we would slogan the movement as; Taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That's the goal of the Tea Party movement. They want a world free of the poor. They consider them; unworthy. Their ignorance in that procedure will just get them put into the 'not rich enough' group, and then, they will become dispensable. They're digging their own grave.