Thursday, August 5, 2010

Sharron Angle's Angle On What Is Wrong With The Government

When I read this article about Sharron Angle's most recent comments, I thought to myself that she could not possibly say something more absurd then what she just said, but then I realize I thought that the last time she opened her mouth (although in all fairness, Angle had made these comments a couple months ago).

In an April 21st interview with a Christian radio program with Rick Wiles, Sharron Angle said the following:
"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."
That's right - Angle evokes the Ten Commandments, believing that Democrats are committing idolatry and that they are supplanting God with government.  I find it interesting that she claims we need to depend on God for our protection and to provide for our daily bread, but the way I see things, government is just picking up God's slack, after all, just because government is offering up some entitlements doesn't mean God should stop providing - if he was providing in the first place, welfare rolls should be non-existent, right?

Her statement also seems to be at odds with her issues as listed on her website - in regards to national security and "public protection," Angle's website states that she "is a staunch supporter of the U.S. military, and will work tirelessly to secure the peace and security of our country."  It also states that "she supports strong sanctions against rogue nations that export, support or harbor terrorism and believes that we must do whatever necessary to protect America from terrorism."

Sounds like she is trying to have government do God's job.

Unfortunately Angle wasn't finished - she also goes on to talk about what kind of candidate America needs (emphasis added):
We’re at war in this country – for our freedom, our culture, for our liberty, our Constitution, and we need a true, battle-tested, proven, Constitutional conservative to take out Harry Reid. It isn’t just about anybody but Harry. Harry is a consummate politician. He reinvents himself at each one of his elections as a conservative. And he has a record that works on both sides of the issue. So, we needed someone who can run to the right and stay to the right of this fellow. When he says that he’s voted seven times against partial-birth abortion, we need someone who can say, “And I have a better pro-life record than you, Harry Reid, and we don’t like the way you confirm our Supreme Court judges, who are all pro-choice. And we all know that the battle has been in the Supreme Court all along for life.” The same thing stands for those who love our Second Amendment. Harry Reid now has the NRA saying, “Thank Harry Reid for all his pro-gun votes.” Well, I have the GOA endorsement and we know that once again those Supreme Court judges would take away our right to keep and bear arms. I’m the only one in this race with a battle-tested, proven, Conservative record that I can stand on. The rest of them fall out in this area fighting Harry Reid. And I knew that all along when I started praying over a year ago over it. And this just seemed to be the battle that I needed to go to war with. And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change.
First off, She makes the claim that Harry Reid reinvents himself with each campaign, pretending to be a conservative, but isn't that what she is doing now that the GOP primary is done with?  Molly Ball wrote the following in a July 22nd article that illustrates this point perfectly:
As Angle, a far-right candidate, attempts to position herself before general-election voters, she's trying to spin her ultraconservative positions so that they sound centrist. Hence, privatizing Social Security becomes "personalizing" the program. Now that she's the nominee, she's got expensive political handlers working to help her stay on message.
I also thought her comments regarding Second Amendment rights was interesting - Angle touts her Gun Owners of America endorsement, but the GOA's membership roll is dwarfed by that of the NRA's (300,000 versus 4 million) and the NRA has yet to endorse a candidate, although rumor has it that the gun group is eying Reid.

And finally, Angle's last point was just absurd, stating that people needed a candidate that stood for "faith and trust," not "hope and change" - an obvious jab at the president's 2008 slogan and the Democrat's desire to conduct business differently from the last administration.  By the way, how exactly did "faith and trust" work out for the last administration?  Did they ever find those WMDs or end terrorism in their two wars in the Middle East, fix the economy, solve issues regarding the deterioration of America's infrastructure, or do anything else with their right-wing ideologies?

Essentially, Angle is just indicating to the electorate that she is incompetent (possibly more so then Sarah Palin) and that she is willing to say anything to get elected, and once elected she will attempt to rule as though God was speaking through her Senate seat (not the loveable New Testament God either, but the intolerant and hateful tea party god).


  1. Kevin, I would never have thought it possible for anyone to make Michelle "Batshit" Bachmann sound sane by comparison bit the obtuse Angle has done it.

  2. Like Palin, I hope she sticks around because she only makes the GOP look worse!


Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.