TPMDC
Sharron Angle Flees Local TV Station Questions (VIDEO)
Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for Nevada US Senate seat
Share
Send to a friend!
Senate nominee Sharron Angle (R-NV), who has adopted a pattern of avoiding all media except for friendly right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts, had an amusing run-in with a local CBS station's reporter in Las Vegas -- who repeatedly asked her tough questions.
Reporter Nathan Baca asked Angle about past policy position statements on her campaign website about "transitioning out" of Social Security. Angle strongly denied that this meant she wanted to eliminate the program entirely -- saying instead that she wanted to save it. "You believe the Harry Reid lie," Angle replied, also adding that "transitioning out" really meant: "Transition into a personalized account...personalized Social Security accounts that they can't raid."
Angle also refused to answer a question about her previous statement that people could potentially seek out their "Second Amendment remedies" if Congress is not reined in -- a statement that has been widely interpreted as predicting an armed revolt against the government.
Baca followed Angle through a parking lot, repeatedly asking what she meant by "Second Amendment remedies." Angle ignored him.
As Baca reports: "The reaction from the Angle campaign was swift. Their spokesperson called this reporter 'an idiot' -- and another term that cannot be repeated on television."
Comments (140) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Progressive Party
June 18, 2010 9:46 AM
Sharon, you can run but you can;t hide away forever! She has to be the poster idiot for the Tea Party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
June 18, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to Progressive Party
"She has to be the poster idiot for the Tea Party!"
Actually that poster is probably pretty crowded since essentially every Teabagger should be on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 18, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to dswx
How about poster idiot de la minute? (Du jour doesn't work cuz they always have more than one.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillSoo
June 18, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to CyberDuckie
Trading cards.
Or something like the set of cards Bush used in the Iraq war for the "most wanted"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 18, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to BillSoo
PERFECT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cometboy
June 21, 2010 12:50 AM in reply to Progressive Party
She'll hide as long as she can. She won't debate, she won't do interviews except on right wing shows. Bookmark it. She will do ANYTHING to avoid taking credit (or renouncing) her earlier views. The GOP knows that their only shot here is to keep her completely off the radar. Expect the same for Rand Paul. No debates, no interviews.
I'll probably work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cometboy
June 21, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to cometboy
Doh!
*IT'll* probably work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 18, 2010 9:47 AM
"Personal Social Security accounts": because nothing gets a conservative more excited than being able to starve and/or evict senior citizens who had the temerity to live "too long". From a party that spent most of last year whining about "death panels", it's a pretty funny idea...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
June 18, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to Matt Jones
She doesn't want the guv'mint to save jobs and bail out GM or save the banks, but she wants the guv'mint gambling with social security funds of seniors. That's Tea-baggery fer ya.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
June 18, 2010 10:03 AM
Running away from a TV news camera is about as bad as it gets. It makes her look like she's on a perp walk outside a police station.
Good for that reporter for not giving up. We need more like him in the rest of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
June 18, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to bvd
I notice that there was plenty there to identify this as an authentic journalist. You will observe now how she gets a pass from the wingers 'cause he's asking "gotcha" questions. But somehow Bob Etheridge is guilty of assault for wanting to know who the fuck that blurred out face belonged to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcjam
June 18, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to davcbr
Dems and other right-wing targets need to start carrying their own cameras so they can post their own videos of these ambushes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DwH
June 18, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to mcjam
This was a much-deserved ambush. This woman refuses to answer simple questions from anyone outside the RW noise machine, and deserves this treatment.
She spent last week holed up with GOOP leaders who likely told her to just say "Reid" when asked a "tough" question (Why are these considered tough when they are based on her own freaking statements? TAKE SOME RESPONIBILITY!)
No more Sarah Palins!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
June 21, 2010 9:46 AM in reply to davcbr
No, Etheridge is guilty of assault for assaulting the questioner. No matter who it was he has no right to put his hands on someone like that. It gave his opponent a very potent weapon. That's his own damn fault.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theorajones
June 18, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to bvd
Wow, just shockingly bad advance work by her campaign team.
If you've decided your candidate is too whackadoodle to put in front of the cameras, do not walk her through a crowd that includes real media with cameras on her way to the right-wing radio station. Do not put her in a position where she has a 1,000 yard walk through a parking lot where her only option aside from doing the interview is to be caught on camera running away from reporters!
But seriously, the best part of that interview was "you're asking me those questions fed to you by Harry Reid--" "It's ON YOUR WEBSITE!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Knothead Jake
June 19, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to theorajones
Can't they just cryogenically freeze her until the election. "Sorry our candidate can't speak right now because she's frozen. Really see for yourself. See...* knock, knock , knock* frozen solid, come back in Novemeber... thank you."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
June 18, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to bvd
It's going to be very hard for Angle's people to smear that fair, measured and intelligent young reporter we saw at the anchor desk in that video, as "Oh, the LIBRUL MEDIA, again!"
They can't go to that well, forever. Doubtless, they will try. The big question is: will the MSM, in fear for its reputation as "fair and balanced", voluntarily run away from the "librul" label, and make nice with the Angle campaign's insistance upon totally-managed "news"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
June 18, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
My guess is, reporters and journalists who still care about their profession are getting sick and tired of being made scapegoats by utterly worthless human beings like Sharron Angle, and will apply long-overdue pressure and heat to these weasels - and the weasels will fold like origami.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
June 18, 2010 10:03 AM
Yes, we should privatize Social Security accounts to keep the Government from raiding them, and make it so that Wall Street can put all of the money on "16" when the wheel spins and collect healthy commissions and bonuses no matter what number comes up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
June 18, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to Early Out
silly person!
If you put your social security money into a private account, the people running the system can game it to take advantage of your weak market position and take you to the cleaners and leave you with nothing...that's how the markets work.
On the other hand, if congress has sticky fingers and pilfer a few bills, they at least leave an IOU which they have to repay.
I'd rather leave my money under the noses of Congress knowing the DoJ is always available whereas the marketplace has no cops to call on if a theft occurs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
June 18, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
I believe that's what I said, but more concisely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
June 21, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
Don't be so sure about that "have to repay" thing. The catfood commission's Alan Simpson, the former Senator from Wyo, hinted recently that the Feds may decide to default on those IOU's. His reasoning is that the Feds would have to borrow the money to pay them back and that would increase the deficit and that is not allowed. (Unless of course you want to fight a war or build infrastructure in another country like Iraq or Afghanistan.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/18/alan-simpson-in-profanity_n_617232.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
June 18, 2010 10:06 AM
Great! Is that the same reporter that ambushed Gibbons at the airport?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jheartney
June 18, 2010 10:07 AM
Obviously not a reporter intimidated by threats to cut off his "access." The sad thing is none of the useless Washington media would have been that tenacious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
June 18, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to jheartney
What access?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 18, 2010 10:11 AM
Wouldn't "personalized Social Security" amount to a government mandated retirement investment scheme?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hominine
June 18, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to tinsk
Nailed it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to Hominine
Yep. And one managed by the banks that are too big to fail so that they can invest the money in more casino gambling (mentioned above) and skim investment fees, management fees, transfer fees, withdrawal fees, and so on out of the money under management.
Take a look at your IRA or 401(k)for examples of how you can be robbed by the bankers.
You know how you grow bankers? First you send them to law school and train them to be crooks, then you hire the worst of the the lawyers and socialize them in designing and selling financial products no one understands but which guarantee large profits to the bankers.
Finally, from that already untrustworthy crew, the greatest crooks are promoted to actually running the banks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
June 18, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to Richardxx
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to tinsk
Didn't you hear Sharron? ASK HARRY REID!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
June 18, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to It's Pat
How can we ask Harry Reid after Angle has taken Harry Reid "out" which she has said must be done?
We certainly can't ask Congress because they will be lying in a bloody pile after the Tea Party uses the Second Amendment "remedies" and mows 'em all down.
What a world! What a world!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to Mary Alice
You've obviously bought the Harry Reid lie and are now putting words into Angle's mouth from Harry Reid.
Why aren't you asking Harry Reid about the Second Ammendment?
I'm now walking quickly away, avoiding any more questions and I will now only only talk to the right wing media.
/snark
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin1946
June 18, 2010 10:18 AM
Holy moly, she makes Sarah Palin look like statesman material by comparison.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
June 18, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to Kristin1946
No doubt. She makes Alvin Greene look forthcoming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
June 18, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to Kristin1946
Let's not get carried away now, shall we.
Sarah Palin makes a festering hatchet wound look like a statesman by comparison, and quite a charming one, I might add.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 18, 2010 10:31 AM
If you want a "personal account" today, open a 401(k), a Roth, an IRA or a Keogh. Or just open a brokerage account with any of the myriad firms running ads on CNBC all day long.
And here's a neat question for conservatroids. Since half your Social Security contribution is paid by your employer, would you still want to 'opt out' of Social Security knowing that your contribution is going to be cut in half? That employer contribution is *not* 'your money' -- never was, until your employer voluntarily paid it into your SS account.
So, knowing that you get an immediate 100% return on your money when you participate in Social Security, do y'all still want to 'opt out' and do all your saving in 'private accounts' that you could set up today if you really wanted to (so why haven't you done so already?)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
June 18, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to Signalman
You win the thread.
Incidentally, SSA sends me these nifty little notices with, among other things, an itemization of my contributions over the years, wrapped up into this nice, neat number at the bottom. The way I figure it, that's my money. If the Tea Party actually manages to take charge of the government (and destroy large chunks of it), would we all get our SS contributions back? Just askin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
Of course not. That would require the government to increase the debt for domestic expenditures.
Wouldn't want the banks and investors buying bonds and other fixed rate of return investments to face the unlikely prospect of inflation, would you? Especially not to replace the money the banks had already worked so hard to steal from you.
Check the history of the privatized Chilean retirement system if you want to see how the banks would steal it. It's always just a matter of time until the banks steal the money from the little investors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchamp77
June 18, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Richardxx
Not sure what you mean...the companies that administer the personalized accounts make about 1% a year on the assets. Sure, they're profiting from the service they provide but it's far from stealing. In Latin countries where corrupt governments have historically used social security monthly contributions to fund their general accounts pay off the unions and even finance their re-election campaigns, the privatized system has worked out well, not just in terms of transparency but also accountability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to tchamp77
In Chile the funds were given to investment companies and banks to administer. They thus had regular infusions of money to invest and no sales expenses to get the money, so they did exactly what Wall Street banks did. They invested in more and more risky ventures.
Naturally the government picked up the losses and the banks took a big share of the profits. And go check the various fees and penalties that are included in American 401(k)s, etc. There is an initial investment fee, a management fee, most have withdrawal fees, and those are just the more well-known fees. Vanguard and USAA have the lowest fee structures that I am aware of, and they aren't low.
Bankers are socialized to dream up new and greater sounding, more expensive products. If you are aware of what they are doing, they probably aren't really crooks. But don't expect them to warn you of the fees you'll get hit with.
By the way, I mentioned Chile because it was the better known one, but the Dutch had similar problems with the same kinds of retirement plans. And if having crooked bankers and government employees was strictly a third world thing, then we have just had several years proof that the U.S. is another third world country. France, Germany and Great Britain didn't fare much better, and Iceland is not third world. They were just suckered by Wall Street and the City.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchamp77
June 18, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to Richardxx
I don't know what you're talking about when you say the "government picked up the losses." What year was this? The biggest losses ever incurred were in 2008 but most of this money was gained back when the markets went up again. No government help was needed.
When the system was initiated in 1981 the government forced the private managers to invest almost exclusively in government debt. Only in the 1990s did they start to gain flexibility, investing greater amounts in equity and outside of the country. Recently they have created multifunds that allow people to choose how much risk they take, with the most conservative fund investing almost entirely in short=term fixed income. Most nearing retirement age are in this conservative fund, and are not at risk of losing their savings.
In the good old days, when the gov ran everything, the entire fortune of the working class was at the mercy of the boom and bust economic cycles, bank runs, coups, devaluations, etc. etc. All the money was invested locally, in emerging market debt. No sane person in this country would have risked their whole retirement account on Argentine, or Chilean or Brazilian debt in the 1970s and 1980s, but that was what every Chilean worker was forced to do. That was a lot riskier than the current system, in my opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ct
June 18, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to tchamp77
Actually I believe the "administrative overhead" for social security is about 0.08%. The best private-sector funds are Fidelity and Vanguard, who manage to keep their administrative overhead on their big index funds (FUSEX and VFINX) around 0.20% (it was 0.18% and 0.22% respectively at one point but it fluctuates).
In other words, government administration is roughly twice as efficient. (Which is about right given the relative scale of the funds involved: the government administration is really "as efficient", not "twice as efficient", but more fixed-cost overhead disappears into the larger scale.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchamp77
June 18, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to ct
Good point...but isn't the government overseeing trillions more than Vanguard and wouldn't that affect the scale issue even more? Also, what the government seems to do is purely administrative - there's no risk management, asset allocation, etc. (not much of this with vanguard's funds either to be sure but with other managers there is a cost for their expertise).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
June 18, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
No we won't get our money back - those slickys in the gubmint are going to give it to the banks (those nice safe banks that have a reputation for looking out for thier customers) and in return for giving your money to the banks the creeps get money deposited in thier accounts (not yours). That is why the concept of privatizing SS is SOOOOO appealing to the wackadoodles that we have elected to serve us in the swamp.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
June 18, 2010 10:34 AM
Can't even handle a local TV reporter.
Yeah, she's ready for the US Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
June 18, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to Dorn76
Actually they guy is a good reporter, and puts the Washington "Press Corps" to shame with this kind of dogged questioning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
June 18, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to Dorn76
Amen.
The major news networks and the DC press corps. are in bed with the politicians and are always afraid to ask tough questions lest they be kicked out of their symbiotic relationships with politicos.
Thank god for scrappy journalists who know how to pin heinous cowards like Angle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 18, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to jsdc007
I think my favorite part was when he reported that her campaign manager called him an idiot as well as something inappropriate for nightly news. Give that young man a cookie!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
June 18, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to CyberDuckie
And he was practically *beaming* about it. I loved that part!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tchamp77
June 18, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Dorn76
Yes, but you can only do that once! She'll never grant him another interview (unless he agrees to Angle's conditions). The Washington career reporters sink or swim based on continued access.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cometboy
June 21, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to tchamp77
I don't think she 'granted' him that one. She was in a public establishment and so was he. She had no right or opportunity to avoid his questions and he was correctly aggressive about asking them. Not that she won't try in the future. Freedom of the press, in tea party land, extends only to their freedom to help conservative candidates get elected. Since he's clearly not a toady for her, she'll try to have him banned from the next bar and grill she heads to. The best part is that he'll likely stand out in front of the place mentioning the name of the place iys censorship supporting ways!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cometboy
June 21, 2010 1:06 AM in reply to tchamp77
I don't think she 'granted' him that one. She was in a public establishment and so was he. She had no right or opportunity to avoid his questions and he was correctly aggressive about asking them. Not that she won't try in the future. Freedom of the press, in tea party land, extends only to their freedom to help conservative candidates get elected. Since he's clearly not a toady for her, she'll try to have him banned from the next bar and grill she heads to. The best part is that he'll likely stand out in front of the place mentioning the name of the place and its censorship supporting ways!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Quackers
June 18, 2010 10:37 AM
This should be interesting. Sharron Angle's senate campaign is going to consist entirely of efforts to hide what she really is....a far right loony-toon. Her problem is a long trail of videos, interviews, and what she said during her time as a Nevada legislator. Trying to whitewash her tracks will be a herculean task and she's easy pickings for Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
June 18, 2010 10:44 AM
Reid AD: a picture of a herd of cattle, or pigs. Who and What are you voting for, with all the animals have Angle name tags.
I expect her to soon say that she is communicating with voters using the Kim Jong Il technique: Telepathy! So get your tin foil NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
June 18, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to afisher
Her tin foil hat is gone. She was washing it, and the fluoride in the water ate it. [ this occurred because she knew enough to make the hat out of actual tin foil. ALUMINUM DOES NOT WORK ]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to davcbr
Well, send her an aluminum foil hat, then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
breakspear
June 18, 2010 10:45 AM
If Ms Angle cant handle a local reporter then how does she expect to handle an appearance on a bigger show, like 'Meet the Press'? Oh thats right she wont be going on there. What a child for avoiding reporters and their questions. please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hussein Stemper
June 18, 2010 10:50 AM
At least the Chicken Lady would answer questions!
Angle seems rather Chicken herself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
June 18, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Hussein Stemper
Bada bing bada bang
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
June 18, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to Hussein Stemper
Angle is a chickenhawktress . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
June 18, 2010 10:54 AM
Would you like to stick with that answer, Sharron? Maybe you could elaborate, just so there's no ambiguity for you to fall back on later. Let's be really clear about it. Okay? So, you want people to take their money out of Social Security and put it in the stock market? That way the government couldn't "raid" it. Would you consider it "raiding" your account when the brokerage that manages your portfolio takes their cut or charges you for NOT buying or selling stocks, or do you have a different metaphor for that? Do you think it's practical to have people of all ages having to manage their investments or having to pay someone else to manage them? Do you see any way that Grandma might end up with nothing in the pot in a very short amount of time?
Go ahead and make your argument about the evils of government bureaucracy and the oppressive nature of taxes and spending that is out of our control, but it's still nothing compared to the devastation caused by unbridled greed in the private sector. You can't match the banks and the investment firms for their ability to destroy lives and not be held accountable for it. They make the government look like small potatoes. And, you can't vote them out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 18, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to chimpale
I'm not sure what Angle's plan is. I don't even think she knows other than surface talk for the base's consumption.
However, the "Ryan Plan" is interesting. Especially in its hypocrisy.
#1 His "privatizing" plan requires the Federal Government to create the funds by choosing which private company stocks will be in each fund (no chance of corruption there, right?). There will be several funds varying in degree of the illusion of risk/reward.
#2 The federal government will oversee and regulate the funds creating layers of new agencies.
#3 The privatized accounts are optional where people can choose to stay in the current SS system if they wish
Here's the best part:
#4 The federal government (taxpayer) is the guarantor of the private accounts. In the event of a market crash where the money literally evaporates and the retiree loses their life's investment and retirement benefits, the taxpayer by law will be required to bail them out and make them whole of their capital investment, plus interest and adjusted for inflation.
Just another fine example of republicans privatizing the reward and socializing the risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to tinsk
Great response.
My dad was a Social Security District Manager beginning in 1937. Your #1 just described why the SS trust funds are invested in the safest, most secure investment in the world - US Government Treasury bonds. None of that fancy deciding which private companies deserve to get Billions in government money.
If the MMS people were collecting money, drugs and sex for not regulating the Off-shore drilling, can you even imagine the graft available to a civil servant with a Trilling dollars to invest? That's what the so-called private system would give, over and above putting all of your retirement into the markets and subject to market risk.
As to that last, remember the letters from Social Security Administration telling you that your retirement is intended to be made up of three legs - retirement plans, investments and social security. That's diversification. Social Security is the very safest, while the investment plans are the most uncertain, but if you are lucky, provide the best return.
I knew one lawyer who reached age 60 and had significant savings. He always complained about the comparatively low rate of return on Social Security (ignoring the fact that it was the only investment explicitly adjusted for inflation.) Then his wife got cancer. She lived for four years and bankrupted them.
When he came in to file for Social Security he told me the story and grinned ruefully, saying that after all his complaining over the years, Social Security was all he had left to retire on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 18, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to chimpale
I might also add, consider the unfairness of say you and your neighbor investing the same amount in the same government controlled investment funds. Your neighbor is several years older than you. The market is high when he retires and he makes a killing. But since you are not 62, you can't touch yours and the government forces you to wait. Except when you retire 3 years later, the market has crashed and you lose your investment. You get less than your neighbor for retirement even though you made the exact same investments all because the government forced you to keep your money in the market.
Secondly, can you imagine the impact on the stock market if the government would allow people to move their money out at the hint of a crash? Imagine 200 million people taking all of their money out of their private market accounts at the same time? The US economy would implode within days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
June 18, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to tinsk
That's not fair! You're getting into the details. You're only supposed to gloss over it so that it appears to be a 'common sense' approach. That's the way to appeal to Sharron's base, not by looking at how it would actually play out. You need to shut off your critical thinking skills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 10:56 AM
"You're getting your questions from Harry Reid!!!"
"Ask Harry Reid!!!"
"Don't ask me about my positions or statements of the past, Harry Reid!!!"
"But...but...Harry Reid!!!"
So she'll only talk to conservative media; does that mean she will only talk to conservative constituents? And if she does not like them of their ideas, she'll run away and ignore them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
June 18, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to It's Pat
Isn't it nice that we've finally moved past "But ... but ... Bill Clinton's penis!" into entirely new excuses for the GOP's avoidance of reality?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 18, 2010 10:57 AM
The MSM needs A LOT more reporters like Mr. Nathan Baca. Keep it up dude!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
frsbdg
June 18, 2010 11:13 AM
Takin' a page from the Palin playbook, you betcha! Don't answer any questions except softball ones. Oh, and demonize someone else (in this case, Harry Reid), so you can use them to divert any scrutiny of yourself. All the cool kids are doing it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
June 18, 2010 11:16 AM
Couldn't she, according to lib standards, have just physically attacked the reporter??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hominine
June 18, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to Barney
Yes, I know I am constantly seeing 'lib' politicians 'attack' 'reporters'. Hahaha.. Good to see you are still a perpetual joke Barney!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
June 18, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Barney
You're stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
June 19, 2010 7:24 AM in reply to Barney
Stupidest comment in the entire thread. Way to go Barn!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mibwilso
June 18, 2010 11:23 AM
I'm sure that next we'll hear Sarah Palin and others rushing to her defense, decrying the "gotcha" questions from the "lamestream media".
Of course, according to consevatives, being asked about words that you yourself spoke is "gotcha journalism"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
June 18, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to mibwilso
Sarah Palin complains about the "lamestream media" because Katie Couric asked her WHAT F*#$%^*! BOOKS SHE READS!!! BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHARR!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
June 18, 2010 11:23 AM
The left wing thugs in the media can do all they want to try to physically intimidate the female GOP candidates..but that still ain't going to stop them from winning
Have you seen the jug-eared idiot's latest poll numbers???
41% and dropping faster than Bawney Fwanks XXXL tightie whities in a bath house
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mibwilso
June 18, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to Barney
Wow...the GOP really sends out their best and brightest to troll around on liberal blogs....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hominine
June 18, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to mibwilso
Well at least no one takes these folks seriously.. It is the best part of their collective delusion, for myself anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
June 18, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to mibwilso
Yes, they do. It's comforting, isn't it, to see the quality of the opposition?
It's like watching a white supremacist and thinking, "Geez, if he represents the best that the 'white race' has to offer, Caucasians are probably doomed."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dunvegan
June 18, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Early Out
Along those lines: I've never heard of a white "supremacist" who could actually spell it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to mibwilso
And what's funny was the lackey troll said the female GOPers would win and then linked to a poll that had nothing to do with the aforementioned female GOPers.
Let's you know the trollers are losing their minds when they can't stay focused on the actual subject they mentioned in the first place. LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DwH
June 18, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Barney
My God you're a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
June 18, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to Barney
ha ha, "physically intimidate."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jmargaret
June 18, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to Barney
Sounds like you're a little too interested in visualizing what you think is going on in that bath house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
June 18, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Barney
BWAAAHAAAHAAA Rassmussen. Most recent CNN 50/48, Most recent Gallup 46/44
Given all the shit thrown at this President his numbers have remained amazingly steady, accept of course with Rassmussen, which almost every body now discounts as useless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
June 18, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to jsfox
Remember, up until the last 2 weeks of a presidential election, Rasmussen... organically or by premeditation; does it really matter?.. functions primarily as a friendly talking point machine for the GOP and Fox "news".
When it becomes clear that their outlier status is 'way off the rails, as the election is imminent, they suddenly, miraculously mirror what everyone knows is about to take place, in order to produce a "track record of being right".
And after that, they go back to being the Gloom And Doom Machine for Democrats; mixed-into a "poll of polls", such as a TPM poll tracker, Rasmussen's results invariably weigh-down the supposed average. By keeping the reported popularity of the President and Dems in general down, they help create the famed "aura of inevitability" that the country is more amenable to right-wing politics and politicians, than it really is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 18, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to Barney
Call me when President Obama's approval rating is less than the aggregate of President Bush's and VP Cheney's when Bush left office.
Two of your heroes, added together, don't even measure up to *one* Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
June 18, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Barney
"The left wing thugs in the media can do all they want to try to physically intimidate the female GOP candidates..but that still ain't going to stop them from winning"
You misspelled that last word... should be whining.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to howie911
LOL!!!! Good one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 18, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to howie911
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack of All Tirades
June 18, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to Barney
Yes, asking questions is 'physically intimidating'. Your team doesn't exactly set high standards do they? Maybe you can elaborate on Second Amendment remedies? Getting rid of the EPA?
Put up or shut up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
June 18, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Barney
"The left wing thugs in the media can do all they want to try to physically intimidate the female GOP candidates..but that still ain't going to stop them from winning"
You misspelled that last word... should be whining.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
June 18, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Barney
Shouldn't you be servicing a BP exec somewhere?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
June 18, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to Barney
Just for the record, I don't know any women who would be "physically intimidated" by people asking us perfectly legitimate questions. Feel free to can the phony chivalry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
June 18, 2010 11:32 AM
The reporter was great but, he should have pointed out that by personalized accounts, she meand Privatized Accounts which is why he mentioned the stock market. Hopefully the rather large senior population of Nevada knows what she means and don't like it one bit. What an idiot this woman is!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SpaceCowgirl
June 18, 2010 11:39 AM
Of course she ran away. She hasn't been properly prepped to deal with non-right wing questions, and the GOP/Teafarters don't want another Sarah Palinesque disaster on their hands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 18, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to SpaceCowgirl
Too late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to SpaceCowgirl
Angle is also a wingnut true-believer who has joined the Republican Party only because the wingnut party has no chance of being elected. Anyone think it likely that she will accept advice from a consultant who doesn't believe in her wingnut party? He'll be the enemy, of course. (Do the Republicans even have women consultants who could do that job and who would want to?) And converting her will be especially difficult since she won't be talking to anyone but other wingnut true believers. She really believes she represents the wave of the future and everyone will gravitate to her positions.
She only has four months to throw all her most fervent beliefs into deep storage and learn a completely new set of responses to the most likely questions. Oh, and figure out how to put down her well-known wingnut positions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
June 18, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Richardxx
Nicole Wallace?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vincent F
June 18, 2010 12:23 PM
She's fleein' the interview, she's fleein' the interview!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
June 18, 2010 12:28 PM
"their symbiotic relationships with politicos."
I'd call it more of a parasitic relationship myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
June 18, 2010 12:29 PM
The only way to win an argument with an idiot is to ignore it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
June 18, 2010 12:30 PM
Barney is my favorite parody troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 18, 2010 12:33 PM
Sort of a disconnect between the "2nd Amendment remedies" bluster and the running in fear from a reporter. I waiting for her to play the wictim of sexism card. These people are the worst kind of cowards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jbentley4
June 18, 2010 12:37 PM
Harry Reid needs to go for the kill and suffocate this baby in cradle - devise one or two clever ads and just blanket the Silver State airwaves. do not let her up to breathe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
June 18, 2010 12:40 PM
She's perfect for SarahPAC. Future modern campaigns will all be conducted via Facebook.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 18, 2010 12:50 PM
Social Security today is a pay as you go system: current workers pay in money, about three quarters of which (and rising in future years) goes out to current beneficiaries.
So if you "personalize" Social Security, and a worker's contributions go in to their own account, invested for their own retirement, where do you get the money to pay current retirees? That's a $625 billion dollar hole to plug (and rising), just for a ten year projection that's a $7 trillion (trillion!) deficit.
Gee Mrs. Angle, I thought you tea party folks didn't like deficits? Yet you're proposing the mother of all deficits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeff Lichtman
June 18, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to Ron
You nailed it. Social Security isn't a fully-funded pension system - it's a tax-supported benefit. Payroll taxes mostly go to pay for current retirees, current SSI benefits, etc. There is a trust fund, but it was created only to help get the system through the retirement of the baby boomers - this trust fund is *supposed* to run out eventually.
Most advocates of privatizing Social Security ignore this - they pretend it's a fully-funded pension system. They bypass the question of how you could transition to a fully-funded system (with individual accounts) while continuing to pay current benefits. In effect, they're double-counting the money. Whether Sharron Angle is being stupid or dishonest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Jeff Lichtman
SSI benefits are funded from the General Revenue funds. The Social Security Administration only administers it, and they charge the General Revenue for the cost of administration.
SSI used to be what was called Aid to the Aged, Aid to the Blind and Aid to the Disabled. SSI has always been a General Revenue funded program and remains so.
Only the Retirement and Disability payments come from the trust funds and the FICA tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
June 18, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to Richardxx
Oh, and the trust funds have existed since the beginning of the program in the 30's. Their original intent was to allow a safety buffer to fund the benefits if the tax revenues dropped because of a declining GDP.
The change you are talking about occurred during the emergency Reagan era adjustments. The FICA tax was increased to build the trust funds to pay for the retirement of the anticipated baby boomers. But the funds themselves predated that time.
And the most important part of your post you got right. Essentially the benefits to those who cannot work because of retirement, disability or death of the wage earner come primarily from current revenues. As my dad explained to me, the currently working people have to provide the real products for those people anyway since they are not working. It is only reasonable that the financial system mirror the real production - consumption system it is intended to support.
Social Security was never intended to be an investment system. The current workers will always have to support those not working anyway, and saving the fiction of money does not assist that process in any way. It just redistributes the produced goods and services to different people (the wealthy.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
two crows
June 18, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Jeff Lichtman
how about, "all of the above"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 18, 2010 1:06 PM
Put my retirement money into a private account?????
You mean like at Bear Stearns?? Or AIG?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
June 18, 2010 1:11 PM
Nathan Baca has a bright future ahead of him. Sharon Angle, not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob
June 18, 2010 1:21 PM
It was a journalist practicing due diligence. Not unlike Maddow or Olbermann.
Also, NOT the KoolAid colored frosting that Goebb-Ailes likes to have his minions smear onto anyone who isn't a member of the Foxzi Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 18, 2010 1:54 PM
Surprise ... her webpage is just a shell, now saying "Full web site launching soon".
Its tough when one is asked to defend what one believes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vietnameravet
June 18, 2010 1:57 PM
Yes its all clear to me.. she wants to destroy social security so she can save it!!~
There is something radically wrong with this country if people can put faith in someone like this. To think that we even have to explain to people how two faced and plainly stupid she is is amazing. But then again there is Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck both of whom have proven that living in an alternate reality where the laws of reason and logic dont apply can be of great benefit to your right wing career.
To me there is only one explanation for this kind of stupidity being tolerated.. racism and fear.. and no amount of reasoning can combat that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HappyTim
June 18, 2010 2:22 PM
It seems pretty unfair to call a reporter not nice names for following up on previous statements about legitimate policy questions. Some people do support the privatization of social security; if that is Ms. Angle's position, the public certainly has a legitimate interest to know. Issues relating to the second amendment are also legitimate policy questions.
Gotta give Harry Reid credit for picking her as his opponent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
two crows
June 18, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to HappyTim
it also seems pretty unfair to blame Harry Reid for questions that come straight from her own website. has she read it, I wonder?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
June 19, 2010 12:31 AM in reply to two crows
Well, to be fair, Republiboobs aren't really known for being....well, fair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
June 18, 2010 2:29 PM
Can you say Sarah Palin wannabe, where's Tina Fey
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fodder
June 18, 2010 2:42 PM
LEAVE BRITTANY... uh, SHARON ALONE!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
icarrion
June 18, 2010 2:46 PM
Jesus, what a dumbass - let's save Social Security by getting rid of it. Geesh --
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
two crows
June 18, 2010 2:49 PM
I believe the author was kind when he wrote about her "previous statement that people could potentially seek out their "Second Amendment remedies" if Congress is not reined in -- a statement that has been widely interpreted as predicting an armed revolt against the government."
It doesn't look so much like a prediction to me. More like a call to arms. This woman is so shortsighted as to be criminally negligent. Another civil war is what she wants? Seriously?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
June 18, 2010 3:25 PM
The very term Social means that the money is not in a personal account. She's just playing word games on her destruction of the program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
June 18, 2010 3:29 PM
"Why do you want to eliminate the EPA?"
"You should ask Harry Reid why the EPA is doing such a bad job in the gulf."
"Why do you want to eliminate Medicare and Social Security?"
"You should ask Harry Reid why he's trying to bankrupt Social Security."
"What do you mean by 'Second Amendment remedies'?"
" "
Etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
June 18, 2010 5:02 PM
To paraphrase the late, great Fielding Mellish: "I object, your honor! This candidate is a travesty. She's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1dmnolan
June 18, 2010 5:04 PM
The phrase "Harry Reid" is like a talisman for this woman. She can use it to deflect any legitimate inquiry or criticism, in much the same way McConnell and Boehner use the term "Nancy Pelosi" as a misdirection. But watching this video leads me to think Ms. Angle is very close to an on-camera meltdown and then Harry will no longer be able to help her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
June 18, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to 1dmnolan
This was a mini-meltdown for sure. Angle is like the Wicked Witch of the West: exposure to "sunshine" will melt her into a puddle of fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1dmnolan
June 18, 2010 5:13 PM
And didn't she say that "Harry Reid has water-boarded the American economy?" Wasn't waterboarding supposed to keep Americans safe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
June 18, 2010 6:05 PM
What does Sharron Angle mean when she talks about using Second Amendment "remedies" when an elected Congress doesn't support Tea Party agendas? It sounds as if she means Tea Partiers should just get their guns and shoot Congress?.......am I missing something here? If that isn't what she means what DOES she mean? What are Second Amendment remedies?
Inquiring Minds Want to Know
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 18, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to Mary Alice
"What does Sharron Angle mean when she talks about using Second Amendment "remedies" when an elected Congress doesn't support Tea Party agendas?"
ASK HARRY REID!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
June 18, 2010 6:45 PM
I don't know what is the more heartbreakingly beautiful sight: seeing conservatards ruin their own party, or seeing them ruin their own party while remaining completely oblivious to what they're doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
June 19, 2010 12:16 PM
Sharon Angles's platform: "Go ask Harry Reid."
So, elect Sharon Angle, and she can go ask Harry Reid.
Seems more efficient to elect Harrry Reid and cut out the Sharon Angle middleman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
June 19, 2010 6:54 PM
When you flee like a dog, you lay down with Fox.
Or something like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
June 19, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to Leftflank
Angle needs a new angle---ask, Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?