MSM helping Angle cede NV Senate Race to Reid?
A reader alerted me to a Washington Post story about a response Sharron Angle gave to a questionnaire from a social conservative organization. The Nevada Republican U.S. Senate nominee answered “Yes” to this question:
In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports “equal rights for gays” and offers benefits to “partners” of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?
First, I’m just wondering if the MSM reporters are rooting around in the candidate questionnaires of Democratic candidates looking for extreme answers. Second, this is a pretty stunning answer. Now, I doubt the candidate herself filled out the form, probably delegated it to some campaign flunky. (Note how Democrats use this excuse all the time when Republicans discover potentially damaging answers on their questionnaires.)
That said, she did sign off on it. But does she mean it? Given how many corporations offer benefits to same-sex partners of their employees, it’s probably safe to say that several may have already donated to her campaign. Has her campaign been refusing checks from such corporations?
Her campaign should clarify that the response was just an error made by an overzealous staffer. If it doesn’t, this response could hurt her with a lot of Americans in the middle who are neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, but who wonder at a candidate who objects overmuch to a private corporation, without influence from government, determining, on its own, the best way to treat its gay employees.
In her campaign, Ms. Angle has done a good job rallying the Tea Party folk who believe the government is doing too much and who trust the private sector to make the right choices. Her answer to this question suggests she scorns private corporations who make certain decisions in setting corporate policy.
She would help her campaign if she would say as much and change the answer to the question. If not she risks ceding the election to a politician, increasingly unpopular in his own state and is out of touch with his constituents on nearly every issue.
30 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Maybe she just prefers AMD processors.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2010 @ 2:51 pm - August 7, 2010
[This comment has been edited to removed the commenter's nasty remarks and misrepresentations of the blogger's points. We have retained all her civil points.--Ed]
Comment by Serenity — August 7, 2010 @ 3:14 pm - August 7, 2010
It’s interesting to note that while the Reid proxies are clutching their pearls over this, Angle’s talking about our unemployment and Reid’s website talks about his vote for $26 billion more in porkulus spending.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2010 @ 3:25 pm - August 7, 2010
I can’t say that I’ve paid all that much attention to the NV contest but I’ve heard enough from Angle to make me glad I don’t live there.
If Angle was confused by the question, she’s not qualified. Does she really mean “yes”? Yes… she doesn’t miss too many opportunities to pander to the straight == virtuous; gay == immoral crowd.
I couldn’t vote for Dingy Harry at gunpoint but I don’t think I could vote for Angle.
I’d have to choose none of the above.
Comment by SoCalRobert — August 7, 2010 @ 3:27 pm - August 7, 2010
And SoCal, that’s exactly what the Reid Democrats want you to do. He can’t win a majority, but he could win a plurality. And Angle is making that easier for him everyday.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 7, 2010 @ 3:34 pm - August 7, 2010
Gay Patriots–
I hope that all conservatives can come to the conclusion that, whatever their personal feelings might be, it is none of the government’s business who marries whom. I see this as a big issue of small government.
Likewise, it is not the government’s business what deal employers and employees workout between themselves.
In fact, I’m about to get radical and public on this issue. So tired of letting liberals have all the air space, and now seeing otherwise smart and decent conservatives staking out a not-conservative position on the private issue of marriage.
I’m really kind of scared about going public with this oddball position, but it’s the right (correct, proper, moral, sensible) position.
Good luck to all of us in our efforts to free ourselves from oppression and dependency.
Comment by Lyn Washington — August 7, 2010 @ 4:17 pm - August 7, 2010
I just read the whole survey signed by Sharon Angle and linked in the WaPo article. You can get there from Dan’s link.
It is a red blood social conservative survey and right after 35A the person surveyed is asked to write out the reason for marking any of the questions with “no.”
Frankly, saying you would not take PAC money from a corporation that supports equal rights for gays and offers benefits to partners of homosexual employees is simply supporting one of the first questions on the survey. That question asked if the candidate supports gay marriage and Angle said “no.”
If gay marriage is not the leading “equal rights for gays” issue, it is at least at the top.
To focus entirely on the half of the conditional about “benefits to partners of homosexual employees” is to ignore full scope of the question.
35A is sort of a Katie Couric gotcha type question. Angle didn’t bite.
This whole “gay equal rights” thing is about giving how you do sex an equal right. The 14th Amendment fullly covers gays. It just doesn’t cover everything gays want.
Angle gets my imaginary vote. I do not see that she opposes gays getting benefits from private corporations, but she does oppose corporations that want to influence politicians on the “equal rights for gays” side. No one knows how she would have answered 35A if the conditionals had been asked separately. This is how her committee should parse it.
Your turn, Serenity and Levi.
Comment by heliotrope — August 7, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - August 7, 2010
I don’t believe it. Wait until after Labor Day when the hot races start to boil…
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 7, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - August 7, 2010
Well heliotrope, I don’t especially mind that if Sharron Angle refuses campaign contributions myself, she can keep digging as long as she wants.
After reading the whole thing myself (Thanks for suggesting that!) I found the following more objectionable:
Sharron Angle supports restrictions on the “production, sale, and distribution of pornography” (question #13, presumably wanting more beyond restricting sale to under-18s, which I believe is already illegal).
Sharron Angle believes that “clergymen should have the right to express views from the pulpit on legislative issues” (question #14A)
Sharron Angle believes that “clergy should have the right to support or disapprove of candidates for political offices from the pulpit” (question #14B).
Sharron Angle supports “the right of students and teaches to publicly acknowledge the Creator” (question #16, Supreme Court decisions be damned!).
Sharron Angle opposes the decriminalizing of drugs (question #22, and an issue where I’ve come to believe the War on Drugs has been nothing but a waste of taxpayer money).
Sharron Angle opposes unbalanced budgets (question #31, and something I don’t object to, but also something I don’t believe her on for even one second).
So, to question #35B. We can gather from this that “equal rights for gays” are something Sharron Angle is fundamentally opposed to from her answer to question #35A.
I think the point Daniel was trying to make is that same-sex marriage doesn’t have to be viewed as a part of equal rights for gays, and thus Sharron Angle could’ve answered no to question #35B, and use the comment section as her out to take a moderate stance on the issue saying she’d have to consider Intel’s meaning of “equal rights”.
But she didn’t. Despite the big, bold “NOTE: This is a public document.” on the first page. Even if Sharron Angle does have moderate views on this, she should be more careful in the future.
Oh, and if you want to see what was deleted here you go. I think my satire hit a bit too close to home in parts. I also do need a better way to do quoting on my site, but I’m quite proud of ‘failed candidate’. Also, please don’t delete this post and force me to make a second page, it’s hard work.
Comment by Serenity — August 7, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - August 7, 2010
I agree with most of Sharron Angle’s answers.
But I would take a reasonable approach to the question regarding pornography — I don’t care what an adult legally does in the privacy of their bedroom.
And the “35B” answer on the questionnaire could be answered as “NO” — You can disagree with same-sex marriage and civil rights laws but a corporation shouldn’t be blamed for doing something harmless in their free will.
FYI: I think that civil rights laws need to be repealed and replaced with laws that actually improve people’s lives. Individual rights and freedom can defeat bigotry, not a law.
Comment by Totakikay — August 7, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - August 7, 2010
So from Serenity’s post, we’re to understand that she doesn’t belive Sharon Angle’s replies when sher agrees with them, but she does believe them when she (allegedly) disagrees with them. Wow, consistent much?
Comment by The_Livewire — August 7, 2010 @ 6:46 pm - August 7, 2010
Hmm, doesn’t sound as though Serenity is that serene.
Chalk up yet another example of “progressive” false advertising.
Comment by American Elephant — August 7, 2010 @ 7:08 pm - August 7, 2010
Unless, of course, you’re Party Approved clergy Like Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, Father Phlager (sp?) etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - August 7, 2010
GASP! A Senate candidate who favors freedom of speech? WTF is this world coming to?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - August 7, 2010
Well considering how mad Sharron Angle is, I can believe her wanting to kill the separation of church and state, ban pornography, and get creationism into public schools.
But balancing the budget? Being the one to blame they they kill all the benefits, raise taxes, cut into the military budget, and/or make Nevadans live without their pork? No senator’s that mad. She’ll just do what they all do and blame the other 99 senators for the state the federal budget is in, while arguing Nevada really does need all that extra money.
Comment by Serenity — August 7, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - August 7, 2010
Is it?
Given what “equal rights for gays” can mean for the Left (which does almost all the talking about “social rights”) I don’t find the answer stunning at all.
The meanstream media — or as Rush Limbaugh likes to call them, the drive-by media — are certainly trying to help Reid and hurt Angle. That is to be expected. But to say they’re helpin Angle “cede” the race to her unpoplular opponent is going much too far.
Even without knowing any Nevadans, I can say with confindence that the people of Nevada aren’t going to make what is (or isn’t) good for homosexuals the deciding priority in choosing their senator.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — August 8, 2010 @ 12:22 am - August 8, 2010
Sharron Angle supports “the right of students and teaches to publicly acknowledge the Creator” (question #16, Supreme Court decisions be damned!).
Actually, any student, and any teacher are well within their rights to recognize any “creator” they choose according to the Supreme Court. What they objected to and found to be unconsitutional was teachers in public schools leading students in any form of religious instruction/prayer especially if that instruction went against a student’s religious beliefs. That’s why there’s no law against a teacher wearing a crucifix or a star of David to school. And there’s also no law against any student (or group of students) praying of their own free will in school. It’s just unconstitutional to coerce or force them to participate in prayer/religious expression.
Comment by Kristie — August 8, 2010 @ 1:57 am - August 8, 2010
CLDave, very interesting spin on her remarks. Many on the gay left do have a pretty Orwellian notion of what equal rights means for gays.
Still, she wouldn’t take money from a company that supports that? Seems a bit extreme to me.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 8, 2010 @ 3:16 am - August 8, 2010
I’m not very surprised by Angle’s answer. She is very much of a social conservative and a traditionalist. Still, she has had enough sense so far not to be openly anti-gay, and I’m hoping that she retains that strategy.
As I’ve said before, I think she is far from the ideal candidate that can attract most Republicans and enough independents to defeat Reid. The governor’s race in Nevada might offer a more honest proxy on how Nevadans feel about Reid. There his son trails the moderate Republican candidate by about 10 points. Fortunately the group of Republicans who actively support Reid doesn’t seem to have grown much since it was first announced in mid-June, and many of those Republicans who have been vocal about supporting Reid are seen as self-serving.
At this point, neither Reid nor Angle is very popular with voters who feel like they’ve got to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, having seen what Reid has done, the choice is clear, and even if Angle makes ridiculous homophobic statements next week, I’d still vote for her–just because I feel strongly about wanting to get Reid out of office. I’m quite confident that whoever wins this one will do so with a plurality of voters because I expect this year the option “None of these choices” will receive a record number of votes in this race.
Comment by Kurt — August 8, 2010 @ 4:06 am - August 8, 2010
There isn’t any beyond the fact that the feds can’t tell churches what to do. She wants to do away with that….how???
The question reads: Do you favor laws that restrict the production, sale and distribution of pornography?
Emphasis mine. Where the hell do you get “ban” from that question?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 8, 2010 @ 5:17 am - August 8, 2010
Or instead of trying to find an answer you like Daniel, you just have to admit that she probably feels that way. She might just be really opposed to any positive affirmation of the gay lifestyle because of she believes its an awful lifestyle.
Fact of the matter is, She has turned to be a less than stellar candidate and the seat is likely to be retained by Reid. He just has more experience and is a better campaigner and politician than her.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — August 8, 2010 @ 8:09 am - August 8, 2010
Ahhh, poor Serenity thinks ‘seperation of church and state’ is anything more than a liberal buzzterm.
Sharon Angle’s statements on churches, for example matches that of several democrats in the past.
So one could argue that Serenity may oppose the restrictions on pornography. But she’s fine with downright wants to restrict free speech she disagrees with.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 8, 2010 @ 11:25 am - August 8, 2010
#22: Well, The_Livewire, you know how liberals tend to exaggerate and engage in hyperbole when they sense conservatives trying to impose even theoretical restraints on their most cherished freedoms. For example, feminists accused conservatives of everything from subjecting them to “slavery” to forcing all Americans to live in a right-wing theocracy “like it’s the 1950s” when we felt compelled to stop them from hiring doctors to stick shivs into the skulls of inconvenient gestating babies that were wreaking havoc on their personal schedules.
We just ruin all the fun, don’t we?
Comment by Sean A — August 8, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - August 8, 2010
Why mince words? Just say that he’s a good bullshit artist.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 8, 2010 @ 4:03 pm - August 8, 2010
Yeah, because a state run on Christian principles like “Love thy neighbor” is just too horrific to contemplate.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - August 8, 2010
It’s also interesting how Mitt Romney’s Mormonism made him a religious whackjob who was unfit to serve, but Harry Reid’s isn’t a problem.
This may be because Harry Reid has found somewhere in Mormon teachings a license to promote abortion, gambling, class envy, and dishonest political attacks.
It’s a feature of the ruling class that it’s okay for a politician to have deeply held religious convictions about the most important aspects of eternity and the soul … provided he craps on those principles at every legislative opportunity.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - August 8, 2010
#24 Basically, it might be bullshit but its part of getting elected. You have to be able to put a message together and stay on it, and Angle has let the race become more about her and her quirks than Reid.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — August 8, 2010 @ 6:50 pm - August 8, 2010
#26: “It’s a feature of the ruling class that it’s okay for a politician to have deeply held religious convictions about the most important aspects of eternity and the soul … provided he craps on those principles at every legislative opportunity.”
So true, V the K. Who can forget Pelosi getting called on the carpet by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops after she arrogantly misrepresented the Church’s position on abortion. Of course, the Church has unequivocally affirmed the moral evil of procured abortions for almost 2000 years, but Pelosi had the unmitigated gall to claim that the issue of when life begins is still “an issue of controversy” in the Church and that “God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.”
Oh, how I would love to be there when that narcissistic bit*h has to “answer for her actions.” I would be begging Saint Peter to let me pull the lever for the trap door.
Comment by Sean A — August 8, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - August 8, 2010
It is plain that there is no justice in this world; especially with the likes of Eric Holder in charge. One can only hope that on the other side, Someone will hold Ms. Pelosi responsible for her actions.
Like the proverb says, “The good are punished in this life and rewarded in the next. For the bad, it’s vice-versa.”
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2010 @ 7:42 pm - August 8, 2010
#29: “One can only hope that on the other side, Someone will hold Ms. Pelosi responsible for her actions.”
Of course, I can only fantasize about Nancy Pelosi facing judgment in the afterlife, but my favorite scenario involves her trying to use the same clichéd left-speak that she used throughout her entire career to plead her case and squeak past the pearly gates. About 30 seconds into her usual, tired warbling, she is suddenly interrupted by a mighty, booming voice with a vast, cavernous echo that says:
“SILENCE!!!!!!!!! NANCY. NANCY PELOSI. THIS IS GOD SPEAKING AND ALREADY I AM TIRED OF YOUR BUUUUUULLLLLSHIIIIT!!!!!!! THIS IS THE ONE PLACE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHERE YOU CANNOT BLAME GEORGE W. BOOOOOUUUUSHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!”
Comment by Sean A — August 9, 2010 @ 5:30 am - August 9, 2010