Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Reid campaign: Angle is crazy and a liar

As I've noted here before, what's striking about the Nevada Senate race is that the primary source of ammo Harry Reid has employed against Sharron Angle -- really, the only source of ammo -- has been nothing other than her own spoken words.

Now the Reid campaign is out with a new Web vid -- to be blasted to the press later this afternoon -- that takes this to a new level, splicing multiple Angle quotes to make the case that she lied three times in one interview about previous controversial things she herself had said.

The hook is Angle's interview with ABC News that aired today, in which she was asked to clarify her claim that Obama and Dem big government policies are a violation of the First Commandment. Angle denied she ever said it, but the video evidence suggests otherwise:

As Eric Kleefeld notes, Angle plainly did make the First Commandment claim.

The above video also shows her seeming to deny she ever used the phrase "Second Amendment remedies," and it shows her insisting that her agreement that there are "domestic enemies" in Congress was taken out of context -- both of which are also contradicted by the video evidence.

The degree to which Angle's own words have become far and away her most glaring vulnerability really is remarkable. Of course, it's equally remarkable -- and a sign of just how unpopular Harry Reid and Obama/Dem policies are in Reid's state -- that a candidate with Angle's verbal track record stands a perfectly reasonable chance of becoming the next Senator from Nevada.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 8, 2010; 3:48 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The coming war among Dems
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

She's a straight-up psychopath.

It's actually sad.

In other news:

"in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025578.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Again, I dispute that she's a crazy "psychopath" liar, but I'd rather have her in the Senate than Harry Reid. Keep up with the ad hominem personal attacks though.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I love the way simply quoting Angle is an "ad hominem personal attack." Kind of makes the point right there.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent:

Calling her a crazy "psychopath" liar IS a logical fallacy, whether you want to admit it or not. You were not simply linking to one quote and then another quote.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Seems Jake's point is that since she's a psychopath she can't also be a liar.

That's quite a defense.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 8, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Jan Brewer. Sharon Angle. Sarah Palin. Michele Bachman. Crazy white women appear to be a GOP delicacy.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 8, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"and a sign of just how unpopular Harry Reid and Obama/Dem policies are in Reid's state"

You say Obama policies but I think the key Obama "policy" that hurts Reid is the multiple occasions where Obama referred to Las Vegas, and travel by rich fat-cats to Las Vegas to spend money (that keeps people employed) in Las Vegas, as a bad thing, and seemed to be (on those occasions) actively campaigning against the city. I think Obama, as the Big Democrat on Campus, did the Democrats a lot of damage in Nevada, not based on policy but on just trash-talking Las Vegas.

Voters don't like that kind of stuff. I think of Obama had left Las Vegas alone, Reid wouldn't have much to worry about right now.

"in literally every category, Americans do better under Democratic administrations than Republican"

Which, if true, is evidence of total incompetence on the part of Democrats. If they were really capable of that kind of micromanagement of the economy, how in the world can they *not* win every election?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

No, cmccauley60, that's not my point (try looking up the word "dispute" sometime). My point is that, even if she IS a crazy "psychopath" liar, she would be a better Senator than Harry Reid, based on his actual politics and (in)actions not juvenile name-calling.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of psychopathic liars, I just read where Glenn Beck will be joining with Caribou Barbie for a 9/11 event in Anchorage -

Tickets are only $225!

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 8, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

That's your "logical fallacy" Jake?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 8, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Angle voter: "la-la-la, i can't hear you."

Posted by: jeeze56 | September 8, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

Just wait until they are all (re-)elected ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but this lady needs to see a shrink.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 8, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

Ad hominem personal attacks are, indeed, one form of logical fallacy.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 3:55 PM


Who is further from the center Obama or Angle ??


Fair question.

/.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, Greg - you finally made me do it! I've now donated to the Angle campaign to counter your relentless shilling for Reid.

Can I suggest an alternative to a popular drinking game for other conservatives here? For every Angle post by Sargent, I propose we each donate some small amount to the Angle campaign.

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/MqXmkiis/SharronAngle/midnav

Posted by: sbj3 | September 8, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"how in the world can they *not* win every election?"

Money.

Your party's lack of moral fiber + huge sums of corporate money = contested elections

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"Ad hominem personal attacks are, indeed, one form of logical fallacy."

True, but I believe the fact that she's a crazy, psyochopathic liar is relevant to the discussion - which means that, in this case, the ad hominem attack is not fallacious.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 8, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaigned saying he would be bipartisan - meaning he committed himself to the American People to do the heavy lifting and compromise with the Republicans - that means CENTRIST POLICIES.

That was Obama's commitment to the people WHO VOTED FOR HIM.


It is hilarious to hear the democrats complaining about "how far from the center" the Tea Party is.


How "far from the center" is Obama???


Precisely the problem with Obama - accuse someone else of doing EXACTLY what he is doing. Time to throw these bums OUT.

.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:

I have donated, but if I did so for EVERY Angle post by Sargent, I would go broke ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle clearly referenced the "First Commandment," and it was not a mis-statement. She is a Christian Reconstructionist, one who believes the only legitimate government is one based on Old Testament biblical law. Christian Reconstructionists are our version of the Taliban.

But just from the clips I've seen of Sharron Angle, it is plain that she should not be permitted outside of a secure asylum without an escort. Anyone who truly believes what she claims to believe is sociopathic, if not psychotic.

Posted by: alert4jsw | September 8, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Did I miss the memo? Is it feed the trolls day?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat:

No doubt, if I started a thread about whether you were an HIV-positive pedophile, THAT would instantly be relevant to the discussion too. Thanks for admitting that it is an ad hominem personal attack, especially when that's all that anyone is talking about rather than her actual positions on the issues.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"how in the world can they *not* win every election?"

________________________________


Well - many of the races are getting out-of-reach for the democrats - so the money demands will not be there.


It is math - but if we end up with Washington State and Wisconsin being the competitive races in the nation - all the money will go there.


At that point, Meek in Florida becomes the big winner, because the national democrats will see him as the best use of their money (because so many races are out-of-reach.)


I realize that Ethan doesn't really want to state clearly what everyone knows.

The House is gone - don't lie, just blame Obama.


The Senate is in play - It will definitely be lost in the next election cycle - and the Republicans have a chance to get to 60 votes in 2012.

Yea - that is what Obama did to the democratic party.


The democratic party is actually in free-fall right now.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 8, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin....I certainly agree with your point about Obama's foot in mouth disease with the comment about the fat cats enjoying Las Vegas...indeed sir your are correct..Vegas likes em some fat cats..makes the wheels of commerce turn so who can blame...we likes our tourists here in Florida as well. :-)

However IMHO I think Reid suffers most from his connection to HCR and that entire bruising battle. There are still some idiots..some of them actually posting here..that believe Obama's tepid HCR incorporating our PRIVATE system of insurance is a socialist conspiracy.

Of course if you ask those posters the difference between private insurance, single payer, and socialized medicine they couldn't provide a correct answer...if you pointed out we already have all three systems in our country they couldn't identify them...and then to top it all off they conflate socialism with communism. No wonder they hate Reid..in their pea brains he's a communist!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 8, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"""I said that? No I didn't say that," Angle told Jonathan Karl -- then possibly remembering it. "Actually, that was a discussion I was having with CBN."""

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/angle-i-was-speaking-christian-audiences-language-on-first-commandment-line.php

Regardless the absurd substance of her comments -- that the agenda of Harry Reid and President Obama violated the First Commandment....

....Either she's a liar or she is the most forgetful person to ever run for office.

...And in either case she is unfit for office.

...Which is why Republicans love her.

As I said above, the whole thing is really just terribly sad for our once-great country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Have at it sbj. One word for you: "fouridation". You wanna ride that horse, be my guest.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 8, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Your party's lack of moral fiber + huge sums of corporate money = contested elections"

Well, that's not a sufficient answer. Logically, smart Democrats who can manage the entire economy orders of magnitude smarter than Republicans. They should be able to make, solicit, and (indeed!) create money out of thin air much better than Republicans.

That being said, they do seem to do about as well. There are many well-fed liberal think tanks, and the Democrats tend to do very well, on the whole (including in the solicitation of corporate money) in regards to campaign donations. Barack Obama rocked the bank account when building up his campaign war chest.

The money difference does not explain why Democrats don't do better electorally, especially regarding the presidency, when by that chart you could have a completely Republican house and senate, and everything would still be all right, if you just had a Democratic president. ;)

It's a powerful chart. If it can stand up to scrutiny, they really should be pushing that. But, even if I true, I think the results are coincidental, and not entirely information, even if not. For example, how does that chart change if you only look at presidents since 1968? Etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 8, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle has made some intemperate comments, for sure. And she ought to explain them better, rather than backtrack on them, because she's dead right in every case. She'd be a hell of an improvement over Dingy Harry, who along with far leftists like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama has authored an unprecedented over-reach of government into personal lives of the citizens, not to mention the wasting of trillions of dollars in "stimulus", primarily a looting of the Republic to pay off their friends and political supporters. Sharron Angle, flaws and all, is a far better choice than Harry Reid, a senile old autocrat who richly deserves to start his retirement starting in November.

Posted by: pijacobsen | September 8, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

If you are going to be a right-wing nutcase, at least don't lie about it. Every time these teabag lunies are questioned about their own statements, they lie. Shows how little respect they have for the intelligence of their voters.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 8, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Did I miss the memo? Is it feed the trolls day?

You're right - my bad.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 8, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow, 4:18 on that vid. How many people are going to sit through that whole thing?

Posted by: Truthteller12 | September 8, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The only liars around here are Greg Sargent and Harry Reid. Two peas in a pod.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | September 8, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Truthteller12:

To be fair, that's an ad hominem personal attack too (even if it is accurate ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 8, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"The money difference does not explain why Democrats don't do better electorally"

It does to me.

Another factor is the homogeneity of the Republican base. It's a lot easier to march in lock-step when you're almost entirely from the same ethnic and religious background.

But, imho, even that pales in comparison to the power and influence of the corporate sector over the GOP.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 8, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_83.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 8, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I thought the Democratic meme was that Angle was a Scientologist? If that's the case, are we sure that her reference to The First Commandments" means what we think it means? Or did the Scientology meme get dropped for something else?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 8, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan did the wrong thing by closing all those hospitals for the mentally deranged.

Now they're all running for office on the Republican ticket.

Posted by: lindalovejones | September 8, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Another factor is the homogeneity of the Republican base. It's a lot easier to march in lock-step when you're almost entirely from the same ethnic and religious background.

____________

Wait, what? Which party had over 90% of a particular ethnicity vote for it?

And you really think that the Dems don't have corporate influence over it? I guess you're ignoring the teachers unions, lawyers, public employee unions... should I go on?

Enough of the bashing of corporate America. There's a reason they aren't in too big a hurry to rehire people. It's because your policies demonize the people that hire. Don't you love how your guy will criticize banks and corporations, then the next day say we need more jobs?

Posted by: Bailers | September 8, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

To answer several questions:

1) Ad hominem "attack"? It isn't a logical fallacy if it's relevant to the debate and the truth. At the least she's a liar. I don't give her the benefit of the doubt of being senile or forgetful, because several times in the past 7-8 months, she's tried to scrub herself clean of her very recent statements. She talked about getting rid of the Dept of Education, Social Security, and some other important things to this nation. She's made several extremist comments. She's also mentioned "2nd Amendment remedies". Sarah Palin has been on the radar for making similar comments earlier in the year - like if the GOP doesn't get their way, they should start an insurrection against some fantasy fascist gov't. That's not crazy? It was fascist under Bush, Fox News was lock-step with GOP, as was conservative radio and Congress. Obama's only gotten moderate legislation passed, even if they had liberal origins.

Now, because Angle's gotten through NV's primary, the RNC has tried to manage her; she's done an about-face on some things. As a U.S. Senator, THAT IS RELEVANT.

2) How do Democrats not win every election?
a) I assume you're basing this off the fact that most of the country is middle-class and work for their wages.
b) I also assume you're considering the progressive agenda and not Blue Dog BS.

Well, the short answer is, the vast majority of Americans are stupid and/or uninformed. I'm American, born and raised, but I'm just going to be honest and say we have a dumb country. Look at education. Look at the misplaced emphasis on business interests vs. everything else (the environment, education, the general ability to live a comfortable and enjoyable life aside from occasional weekends).

Republicans churn out loud, no-nothing candidates who play to the socially conservative, the so-called Christians (how many Americans CLAIM to be Christian, but never quite live a purely decent existence?) [Americans can be very VAIN and arrogant], and they talk to the so-called fiscal conservatives (so-called because they love money so much - really business-centered people and those unpatriotic souls who think Americans should pay absolutely *no* taxes, but allow business people access to natural resources, subsidies, and other gov't spoils and for others, free access to education, infrastructure, security, etc. - just freeload off of gov't like they claim only the poor do with welfare - many of these people only pay a few grand to the gov't but think the rich should be allowed to get over on ALL OF US by not paying their taxes AT ALL - AND THEY DON'T). [Americans can also be very GREEDY].

So, in conclusion, Dems run to serve the people, and Republicans muddy the waters in the debate, appealing to peoples' fears, vanity, misplaced anger, and their greed, so as to serve their own corporate benefactors, usually ruining any progress made by gov't and pushing debt forward to those kids and grandkids they claim to care about.

Posted by: fbutler1 | September 8, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

3) I don't like Reid. I'm not from Nevada, but Sharron Angle in Congress isn't something I want to see. I live just outside of DC and a bunch of crazy, ill-informed hicks bringing their guns downtown. Thanks.

See: Death Panels during Healthcare debate. Insurers are the only entities that have those, and Republicans didn't do jack while in power.

4) Angle wants a theocracy. Her and her kind are indeed American Taliban, far-right extremists - further right than even the Bush/Cheney neocons that ruined our country from within gov't. They are the ultraconservatives.

Obama's "successes" in Congress are practically moderate Republican gems, which are in part thanks to the poor leadership of Harry Reid in the Senate (Pelosi did her part), yet they call him Communist/Marxist/liberal, etc. The reason why he seems like such a leftist to them is because they are so extremely to the right of him, alongside the extremist militia movements.

5) Granted, Obama's spending a lot, but he's doing it for a reason. He's not giving away trillions to defense contractors for a pointless, unjustified war, which Americans didn't benefit us. He's spending the money here. Unfortunately, it's a lot of borrowing that goes along with it.
The stimulus was done for good reason. Bush's policies tanked our economy, as would be expected - tons of spending done by Republicans with zero net benefits for the average Joe. They fought hard for tax cuts in the stimulus (it was 40% of it, they forget), passed with 3 GOP votes all in the Senate (the Maine ladies & the turncoat, Arlen). They take credit for projects in their states for which they voted against the funds.

The bank bailouts were a Bush thing, which Obama further carried out, but Obama should have added strings to everything they got - making personal/business lending on a high-percent basis, if not 100% on the gov't loans to them, key. That's part of the problem right? Banks aren't lending much, but they could get quick, huge loans. Liberals would want strings attached, I think, but it didn't happen.

Healthcare is something Obama ran on, but it took a year because he wanted something bipartisan, which in the end, didn't happen anyway. His bill was mostly based off of a 1994 Republican answer to "Hillarycare" from Grassley-Hatch. Extreme left, huh?

Every time Congress passed something, it fell far short of what it should be to actually fix a problem. The stimulus as big as it was, should have contained FAR MORE FUNDING for infrastructure. How much did tax cuts create or save jobs? Who knows? A smaller $15 bil bill passed with Scott Brown (JOBS bill/Tax cut bill, really) hasn't helped. Healthcare for all, didn't really happen - it was a giveaway to insurers (no public option). The financial overhaul lacked bite and purpose, period.

The Dem base is upset because Obama cares more about leaning indies and the 3% of Republicans who voted for him than libs. Bipartisanship over good policy. Yet he's extreme?

Posted by: fbutler1 | September 8, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

i hope to god they correct 'bold-faced' to 'bald-faced' before too long.

Posted by: blakem | September 8, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Ad Hominem fallacy is where you attack the person instead of their arguments. Pointing out that Angle is a liar (she denied saying stuff she said *on tape*) and a psychopath ('2nd Amendment remedies' just to list one of many) is an attack on her arguments and not her. Cry all you want; reality doesn't care about your silly pearl clutching.

The irony that goes unappreciated by the Reich Wingers posting here is that Reid is a Reich Winger himself (pro forced birth; against Medicare for all; etc.) and even Obama is right-of-center (too-small stimulus; lots of tax cuts; etc.).

Posted by: jiji1 | September 8, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Sharon Angle is, well, subject to outside influences. She is not very bright.

I am guessing that the year was 2002. Angle was a Nevada state representative, and a member of the National Association of Woman Legislators (NAWL).

Angle engaged the NAWL to have a mass locational review of, as I recall, a Mexican prison in Tijuana, of Scientology's criminal and drug addiction program, Criminon.

Now, no one EVER gets involved in a Scientology program for "whatever", unless Scientology is involved from ground zero. The public face of Scientology's concern for the public are Narconon, and Criminon, based on the practice of Scientologists of steaming themselves in a sauna for hours and hours, ingesting massive doses of vegetable oils, and enough niacin to kill ones liver, in order to remove the remnants of each and every drug stored in body fat. (Note that US EPA has studied the storage of drugs in body fat and has found nothing of interest.)

The NAWL canceled their visit to the Mexican prison after a huge internet and Usenet hew and cry about Angles being a TOOL of Scientology.

The fact that Angle appears to be in an intellectual deficit is not new. It appears, on the surface, that she has little intellect, no ability to plan for herself, and must be getting her campaign money from those who consider her to be a willing tool for whomever are donating to her campaign. Scientology might be a prime source of her funds.

Frankly, in the global scheme, Harry Reid is a much better candidate even if he is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Sharon Angle, as a Republican, if elected, would be like an unstable time bomb. She has no ability to hold a personal viewpoint, no
outstanding personality characteristics, no ability to tout her own horn, etc. She would be, if elected to the US Senate, the absolute worst Senator on the floor.

When Angle was outed on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology and the web site http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/index.php for being a tool of the nefarious, criminal (in several western countries), Scientology, she was all "I deny that I had anything to do with Scientology".

Yet, her denial was, of course, for form, not substance. The fact that Angle has arrived at the election speaks unwell for the Republican party, which obviously did not vet her (or $$$ of Scientology was involved), had not heard her speak, did not know of her weird viewpoints that match no party at all. How did Angle get to this point in the election cycle? Think Scientology and its reputed $1+billion war funds, accumulated via the IRS who ruled in favor of Scientology's being a tax-deductible intity in 1993.

Posted by: Quaoar1 | September 9, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com'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