Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sharron Angle ad paints Obama-Reid-Pelosi as tragic love triangle

In terms of pure political effectiveness, the latest ad from Sharron Angle seems like a pretty strong spot:

The ad mocks the Obama/Dem vow of change, tying Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi and President Obama by depicting them as locked in an idealistic but doomed policy romance:

It may be the most tragic love story of all time. Pelosi, Obama, and Harry Reid. Together, they promised to change America. And boy did they. Taxpayer funded bailouts for Wall Street. A $787 billion stimulus that failed. And spending so reckless it's led to record deficits and skyrocketing unemployment.

The claim that the stimulus failed, of course, is belied by analyses from respected economists, as well as from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, suggesting that we'd be in a lot worse shape without it. And the notion that government spending is what produced Nevada's high unemployment rate is not one that many mainstream economists would accept, either.

Also: The gentle mocking tone of the ad seems designed to cut against Reid's ongoing efforts to shine a very harsh light on Angle as extreme, deranged, and dangerous.

(H/T Jon Ralston)

By Greg Sargent  |  August 26, 2010; 1:35 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Glenn Beck rally help Dems tar GOP as extreme?
Next: Flashback: Crist said Palin would "do a great job" as president


An Obama-Reid-Pelosi threesome? Ewwww.

That is kind of gross.

"Also: The gentle mocking tone of the ad seems designed to cut against Reid's relentless efforts to shed a very harsh light on Angle as extreme, deranged, and dangerous."

I'm pretty sure that's coming from Angle's handlers, not from Angle. Given the sorts of things Angle says when unfiltered. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 26, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I guess she took up Reid's offer to "name names" : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 26, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Taxpayer funded bailouts for Wall Street"

Which happened under George W. Bush!!!

What a LIAR!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 26, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"seems like a pretty strong ad:"

Strong in what way?

Did it convince you to vote for Sharron or something? Just trying to understand your point is all.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

mike, I thought it was effective because it conveyed an attack on multiple fronts while sugarcoating its negativity.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Attagirl Sharron. Never let reality get in the way of a good attack line. If the facts are against you, lie outright.

Posted by: CalD | August 26, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

For the average or low-information voter, it is peobably a very effective ad. It is simple, straightforward, has one strong message, and it is much more reassuring than all the scare ads that use Carmina Burana as the music. I'd say it is pitched to older voters and probably very effective for tis target audience.

She's still a nutcase, but hger campaign team is much better than it was.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 26, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

That one is easy to counter.

Reid should put out a spot showing Angle, Palin, Boehner and McConnell in a hot tub.

Show Palin half way stepping out. Show Boehner with a full body Nicotine Stain. Show Angle getting a massage from L. Ron Hubbard,

and show McConnell just as he is.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 26, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I guess its strong for the uninformed which according to polls, is a majority of American's.

So, I guess you're right.

Sharron's answer to the Bush recession would have left Nevadans eating bread and water. Because if she had her way, there would have been no Social Security, no unemployment insurance, no Medicare/Medicaid, most teachers would have been laid off, crime would be rampant because the state wouldn't have had funding for officers, fires would be left to burn themselves out because there would be no firemen and women.

So, you've got a choice between someone who worked to stabilize the economy or someone who would have just let everything we've worked on for decades to better just rot away.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse


Hey Kaddafi, I saw how you were trying to make this taxi cab driver stabber out to be a lefty. Before you start popin' the champagne and strokin' yourself over a job well done, read this.

Anyways, it doesn't matter what his political leanings are. The bigotry on display by Gellar and anyone who associates with that lunatic isn't healthy for this country.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for ya to chew on a bit.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"It could be worse" isn't a good campaign slogan.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 26, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This statement? "And spending so reckless it's led to record deficits"


I don't understand why this ad is allowed to run. It contains a blatant lie.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

IDK about that.

If he started off with words:

Sharron Angle's answer to Bush's recession.

Then show images of food lines and all the poverty and dire situations the followed because of the Hoover do nothing attitude that Angle subscribes to, it could leave a lasting impression.

Follow up by asking, the next time there is a crises, do you want someone fighting to stabilize the country and keep in place the safety nets needed in dire times or this:

and flash more dire pictures of the depression.

And I'm not being hyperbolic either. Angle's solution to the downturn would be to do nothing and if she had her way, all the safety nets wouldn't be there either. No Cobra, no social security, no unemployment benefits, no Medicare/Medicaid.

Is that really what people want?

See, I don't think Democrats have completely done a very effective job telling the American people exactly what it would mean to have a bunch of Sharron Angle's, Jim Demints and Rand Pauls running this country.

It would be devastating.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse


Daily Show bait!!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 26, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

theorajones1, if they don't like BusinessInsiders explanation on where the debt came from, maybe they could like CATO's explanation.

"It's true that the White House is pushing big spending items, not least of which is his multitrillion-dollar scheme for government-run health care. But many critics, either out of ignorance or malice, are blaming Obama for deficits that are not his fault. "

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Lots of fact checkers on here. Since when does the truthfulness of an ad matter as long as it's believable? Perception is reality in politics folks.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 26, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Lots of fact checkers on here. Since when does the truthfulness of an ad matter as long as it's believable? Perception is reality in politics folks."

That's what's so great about this country! Right?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I find this incredible. There are four claims of fact in this piece, and every single one of them is false. Seriously, the very best of them is severely misleading.

"Taxpayer funded bailouts for Wall Street."
Obama didn't sign that bill. Bush did. And it was bipartisan in the House AND Senate.

"A $787 billion stimulus that failed."
It did EXACTLY what it was projected to do, and saved the EXACT millions of jobs it promised. Where they were wrong was predicting the recession would be less terrible than it was. You can't claim gasoline "failed" in getting you through the desert if you were so stupid that you only filled the tank enough for a 300 mile trip when you actually had to go 900 miles! On the other hand, these idiots DID argue that filling the tank only a quarter of the way would be good enough, so this is only half-BS...unlike all the other claims, which are total BS.

"spending so reckless it's led to record deficits"
No. The deficits are not due to spending passed between Jan 20 2009 and today. They are overwhelmingly due to legislation signed by Bush, and the economic downturn his policies helped create.

"...and skyrocketing unemployment." How the heck is Obama's spending, which began no earlier than January, 2009, to blame for the job losses that began A FULL YEAR EARLIER, in January, 2008? And which DECLINED after he took office?

I find it simply incredible that people are hailing this ad as "hard hitting," when it is built on easily proven lies.

This goes WAY beyond saying "hey, things still suck, vote Republican." That's a totally fair critique, and Reid should get beat up for that.

But this ad is blaming Obama and Reid for specific things that THEY DID NOT DO.

What's next? Blame pedophilia on the Wall Street regulation bill? I mean, if we're just making stuff up, why not go all the way?

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 26, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

theorajones1 - That was a beautiful policy smack down.

Many thanks!

Posted by: nisleib | August 26, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

If Greg keeps this up much longer I might actually give Angle some money.

There are other races going on. Are we gonna do two-a-days on Angle/Reid five days a week for the next two months?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 26, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

When these are distributed, is there some dialog that goes on behind the scenes because often enough I see some sort of consensus between pundits.

It's probably just coincidence though.

Writes Halperin: "Republican candidates can do a version of this ad in almost every race in the country. You don't need a focus group to figure out that this is a powerful message."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't know that it's such a strong and effective ad, Greg. It's pretty much the same old tired attack lines that are easy for Reid to rebut.

And the creepy "love triangle" stuff and dumb music....well, I'm not sure that appeals to anyone who isn't already in Angle's corner.

Someone mentioned that maybe it would work with older voters, but when I think of people like my parents, for example, well, people like that already think there's too much sex on TV. ;)

Posted by: elscott | August 26, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent, your post consists of someone else's analysis of another's ad about yet another's policies effecting a state who's suffering you have no tangible experience with. Very meta of you. However, it seems all portions of your working output can be more competently performed by "Google Alerts". Please respect the intelligence of we Nevadans and generate something gainful or even just possesing of original content in regards to this race. We can hear what our own local newscasters have to say just fine on our own. Thank you.

Posted by: decasaint | August 26, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

There are other races going on. Are we gonna do two-a-days on Angle/Reid five days a week for the next two months?

That's why this blog should be called The Plum Angle. There are other races going on but this is the only one Democrats see an opportunity to knock off a tea party candidate. Paul will cruise, Buck is up big, Rubio is up big, Mike Lee has token opposition, Sestak is tanking, and now Joe Miller is a shoe in. The only other race where a tea party type could lose would maybe be Wisconsin but that one is not on Greg's radar yet. Once Johnson wins that primary we will see the same pattern there, where the lefty blogs get clued in to another dangerous extremist running and start muckraking.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 26, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Truth, honestly, Reids seat being in play is probably the most important race. He's the Senate Majority leader.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 26, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out, Charlie Crist in 2008 saying Sarah Palin would "do a great job" as President:

that shoudl help him win Dems from Meek!

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 26, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Did congress vote on the "bailout" during the Bush years? If so, did Reid and Pelosi vote for or against them? Doesn't the constitution hold the legislature, and specifically the house, responsible for spending?

Economists can argue about the efficacy of the stimulus, that's what economists do. In the mean time the economy itself is crumbling. One noted member of Obama's economic staff is gone and calls for the firing of the others will be frequent now. Did the stimulus work? In the minds of most Americans the answer is no. given the unemployment situation in Nevada the answer is hell no.

and the spending by the feds is reckless. It is an apt word in this context.

Good ad. As proof that it works, look how it got under the skin of the Sargent groupies here.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 26, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"It could be worse" isn't a good campaign slogan."

Agreed truthteller...but it's a far better REALITY than what could have happened. Bush economic policies had this country headed into the deep sh&tter!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 26, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, of course. Blaming Bush will work sooo well for the Democrats in the impending election.

Anecdotally a T shirt vendor on the vineyard claimied that "miss me yet" T shirts were out selling Obama T shirts.

so, good luck with that approach to the campaign.

I think the Democrats are going to take a whacking. The public is in an ugly mood. We threw out the RINO's because they were spending too much, only to see them replaced by people who have absolutely no restraint at all.

Sophistry from the left won't assuage the concerns that the Democrat spending has generated. Even worse, the failure to even pay so much as lip service to paygo will not sit well with the electorate. It comes off as a lie at a time when the integrity of the government is being questioned.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 26, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company