Sharron Angle: Back with a vengeance

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Tea Party sweetheart Sharron Angle vowed to keep fighting the liberal agenda as she announced her 2012 congressional run this week.

The former Nevada assemblywoman, who lost a senate race to incumbent Harry Reid in the fall, hopes to grab the House seat that Republican Dean Heller will vacate, The Associated Press reported.

In the spirit of her unsuccessful Senate run, Angle bashed her political enemies while announcing her latest candidacy.

"The Obama administration has made it clear that it intends to pursue unconstitutional legislation like Obama-care, job-killing policies, new regulations and increase federal spending at a level that paralyzes our nation's economic health," she wrote on her website.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...un_for_nevada_house_of_representa.html?r=news

Apparently taking a page from Palin's book, Angle isn't just going to fade out of the media spotlight.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
It'll be interesting to see what kind of Republican challenge (if any) she gets in the GOP primary.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Apparently taking a page from Palin's book, Angle isn't just going to fade out of the media spotlight.
Except, she's going to be seeking office.

She may well win the the primary, because her base is enthusiastic and committed, but I think she'll have a difficult time getting elected. She lost the Senate race to the almost universally disliked Harry Reid, who I would have guessed would have lost to a potato.

A "conservative" Dem, I think, would get most of the independent vote.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
What does "Tea Party" even mean, anymore?

They aren't for smaller government--almost all of them voted to renew the Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire, and they've joined the crusade against reproductive freedoms and gay marriage. I don't know how much more personally invasive the government could get...I mean, they're interfering with personal relationships, sex, and medical decisions, and allowing for government eavesdropping.

I'm serious. What platform is Sharron running on, other than, "We don't like Obama!"
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
What does "Tea Party" even mean, anymore?

They aren't for smaller government--almost all of them voted to renew the Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire, and they've joined the crusade against reproductive freedoms and gay marriage. I don't know how much more personally invasive the government could get...I mean, they're interfering with personal relationships, sex, and medical decisions, and allowing for government eavesdropping.

I'm serious. What platform is Sharron running on, other than, "We don't like Obama!"
Whatever they started out as, they've become a primarily social conservative wing to the Republicans. That may seem redundant, but they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the average republican. Their main message seems to be, let's make America what it seemed to be for us in the 1950s. Oh and, "Obama is an evil socialist ruining America," probably is her main campaign platform.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Well, that was quick. But even if they're more socially conservative than the general Republican population, I'm not seeing any real difference in their voting, and if they wrote out an official platform--like the Republican Party has--would there be any real differences at all?

They're remaining antagonistic toward the rest of the Republicans and keeping a separate name, which seems like a bad call, to me, if they're just another branch of the same. It would mean consistently splitting the vote.

But if they're not the same...then what are they? On the surface of it, there seems to be more of the "Obama's a socialist!" "Obama's a Muslim!" folks on their side, but that's just casual observation, not necessarily backed by the facts (I'm not aware of recent, well-done studies on the prevalence of that sort of thing).
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Not buying it, yet. I think the Tea Party got its roots from the ideas of small government with strict adherence to the Constitution.
When the concept became popular, social conservatives jumped on board. And are among the most vocal.

But I'm not convinced that the Tea Party as a whole is a socially conservative organization.

It's a "party" without a leader and, as far as I know, a published platform.

Don't know it I'm typical, but I agree with the small government part, but don't buy into the social part. I'm not a fan of Santorum or Huckabee.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
What does "Tea Party" even mean, anymore?

They aren't for smaller government--almost all of them voted to renew the Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire, and they've joined the crusade against reproductive freedoms and gay marriage. I don't know how much more personally invasive the government could get...I mean, they're interfering with personal relationships, sex, and medical decisions, and allowing for government eavesdropping.
That's not the Tea Party. You're talking about those that have tried to hijack it. . . .


I'm serious. What platform is Sharron running on, other than, "We don't like Obama!"

I don't know but that's a pretty good start. . . .
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
The only other trait I can think of that unifies the Tea Party is their hatred for any kind of business regulations (such as the EPA, FDA, etc). And they generally try cut all funding to those parts of the government.

Though among the actually politicians, I think it's mainly a conflict about who should lead the party. Which is why you see Tea Party candidates regularly attacking incumbent republicans.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
I think the Tea Party got its roots from Article 1,Section 8 of our Constitution. This section defines what Congress can (and cannot) do - their Enumerated Powers.
Many people believe that Congress, under both parties, has far exceeded the authority given to them in the Constitution.

Their powers are fairly limited, but, of course, open to interpretation - and subject to decisions by the Supreme Court.

Here's a link to the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I think the Tea Party got its roots from Article 1,Section 8 of our Constitution. This section defines what Congress can (and cannot) do - their Enumerated Powers.
Many people believe that Congress, under both parties, has far exceeded the authority given to them in the Constitution.
That may be, but if you look at the people who ran for office or were elected with Tea Party support, many, if not most of them are the far right wing of the GOP -- anti abortion, anti-gay, pro gun, anti immigrant, anti muslim,and of course anti tax.

Those who identify as Tea Partiers are also fans of Michele Bachman, Sharon Angel, Alaska's Joe Miller. Texas' Louis Gohmert, Florida's Allen West, etc.

These are people who are arch conservative, militantly Christian, and quite often, nuts. They do not espouse the libertarian ideals that the original Tea Party claimed to believe in. And these are the people the Tea Party chose to support.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I'm serious. What platform is Sharron running on, other than, "We don't like Obama!"

I don't know but that's a pretty good start. . . .


Oh, Sharron Angle stands for lots of other things.

Like the U.S. pulling out of the United Nations because it is "the umpire on fraudulent science such as global warming."

Like ending abortion in all cases including rape and incest.

Like ending the separation between church and state.

Like banning same-sex marriage.

Like privitalizing Medicare.

Like opposing floridation of water.

Like denying the existence of global warming.

Like lifting restrictions on offshore drilling and drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

Like proposing "Second Amendment remedies" to our current problems with government when she says off-the-wall things like, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around?' I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

If you know nothing about Sharron Angle except that she doesn't like Barack Obama and that makes her aces in your book, you're probably as far out there on the edges of extremism as she is and I hope you're very happy together.

For my part, I will be equally happy to write the largest check I can scratch to her Democratic opponent to beat Angle's ass a second straight time. :e2moon:
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I don't know but that's a pretty good start. . . .

You're on record at this place as hating Obama back in 2008 because he was running against Hillary Clinton, and implying strongly that anybody who supported him did so out of sexist prejudice. And even going so far as to say he smelled bad.

Your credibility is showing. Some of us have good memories.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
You're on record at this place as hating Obama back in 2008 because he was running against Hillary Clinton, and implying strongly that anybody who supported him did so out of sexist prejudice. And even going so far as to say he smelled bad.

Your credibility is showing. Some of us have good memories.

LOL!! I didn't say he smelled bad. I've never been near him!! LOL!! His WIFE said it, and it was Haskins that brought it to the attention of the forum. I'd be careful about relying on that "good memory" of yours, Bbird.

I didn't "hate" Obama. I certainly didn't like him and didn't vote for him, but was willing to support him after the election, and did for a time. But yes, there's no question in my mind that he was elected in large part because of the sexist sentiment in the United States, and particularly in the Democratic party. . . .

Edit: I should add that I did find Michelle's comment about her husband refreshingly "transparent," albeit perhaps too much information. That said, little did I know that her comment would be the first and last time we could count on Obama transparency. . . . -
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
That's not the Tea Party. You're talking about those that have tried to hijack it. . .

No, I'm talking about those that they elect, those that speak at their rallies (to thunderous applause), and those that I've spoken to first hand.

I think the Tea Party got its roots from Article 1,Section 8 of our Constitution. This section defines what Congress can (and cannot) do - their Enumerated Powers.

Then why did they vote to keep the Patriot Act powers and all the rest of that nonsense?

And it's not like it's JUST the people they elect, or chant for at the rallies, because when they make these votes, their constituents don't complain, they don't rebel...they applaud.

I'm very serious here. She's running on a "Tea Party Platform", but I have no idea what that means, and I've yet to find anyone who does. Some of us might have ideas...but it's certainly not written in stone, and none of those ideas jibe well with their actions on the ground...with the possible exception of the point made earlier, that this is all a power struggle within the Republican party.

The Right Wing vs the Even Further Right Wing.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I think "The Right Wing vs the Even Further Right Wing" sums it up pretty well, Monkey. As you said, the overwhelming support of "tea party" reps who voted to renew the Patriot Act pretty well crushed the "tea party is for smaller government" line.

IMO, the social conservatives, led by Sarah Palin, jumped out in front of the tea party parade, and since the movement was originally about half libertarian and half social conservatives, the social conservatives took control. Some portion of the libertarian supporters of the tea party took a hike over the non-ground-zero non-mosque, and many of the rest have now kissed off the whole movement following the Patriot Act vote.

More and more libertarians seem to be going the alternate economy / starve the beast / shrug route; simply opting out of whatever government activity they can, and working to make their local communities more resilient and more green, the better to handle whatever the politicians and the economy throws at us in the future.

Given that Sarah Palin and a number of other chest-beaters are now in charge of the movement, non-intervention doesn't seem to be part of the tea party plan either. Shrinking the empire is no longer part of the discussion.

I see very little difference between the tea party and the people who've been running the show for the last couple decades. Some lip service to cutting big government, perhaps, but that's about it. I don't hear them making any serious proposals with big cuts, though.

Rand Paul excepted. He's put some big cuts out there to be discussed, but he's as unpopular in the Senate as his dad is in the House.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
But yes, there's no question in my mind that he was elected in large part because of the sexist sentiment in the United States, and particularly in the Democratic party. . . .

Oh, so it's time to beat that dead horse's ass one more time, huh? :deadhorse

Barack Obama was elected in large part because he ran a better campaign than Hillary Clinton. She was the front runner before she got blasted in Iowa and at one point was so confident she was going to win she had put together a secret transition team before the primaries began.

Clinton had the advantage of name recognition, experience, party endorsements, tons of money and she blew every last one of them in what was one of the most spectacularly inept campaigns plagued by infighting, poorly made decisions, a meddling ex-president of a husband and no coherent message beyond "it's my turn."

It's a comforting excuse to blame Obama's sexism for Clinton's loss. The flip side of that coin is maybe it was Clinton's racism that contributed to Obama's victory.

Or it just might be that while sexism against a White female and racism against a Black male can't entirely be ruled out, it is a easy out to play the victim card and fall back upon the "isms" instead of examining who ran the superior presidential campaign.

Sexism had a part as to why she lost, but hubris was a bigger contribution. It's nice to have a go-to excuse whenever stuff doesn't go the way you like, but sexism is a wobbly crutch to lean on when the truth is a more basic and fundamental explanation: Obama was the better candidate and got more votes.

Deal with it or don't. All the revisionist history won't change a blessed thing. :rolleyes
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I don't know that Hillary ran an inept campaign. She made a few mistakes. Obama definitely ran a stronger one. But Hillary's campaign was vastly more competent than those of any of the Republican contenders, including McCain's.

If anyone ran what could be called a spectacularly inept campaign in 2008, it was Rudy Giuliani.

But I don't buy the "Hillary lost because of sexism" argument at all, and never have. That just did not happen.
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
I don't know that Hillary ran an inept campaign. She made a few mistakes. Obama definitely ran a stronger one. But Hillary's campaign was vastly more competent than those of any of the Republican contenders, including McCain's.

If anyone ran what could be called a spectacularly inept campaign in 2008, it was Rudy Giuliani.

But I don't buy the "Hillary lost because of sexism" argument at all, and never have. That just did not happen.
I agree. I would even say that the '08 election was really all about Clinton vs Obama, rather than McCain vs Obama. Those two were the ones that ran the best campaigns and had the best chances for getting elected. It's just that Obama is more charismatic and people wanted someone who hadn't been in national politics that long.

In retrospect, I wish that Hilary would have won. But she didn't lose because of sexism.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Oh, so it's time to beat that dead horse's ass one more time, huh? :deadhorse

Barack Obama was elected in large part because he ran a better campaign than Hillary Clinton. She was the front runner before she got blasted in Iowa and at one point was so confident she was going to win she had put together a secret transition team before the primaries began.

Clinton had the advantage of name recognition, experience, party endorsements, tons of money and she blew every last one of them in what was one of the most spectacularly inept campaigns plagued by infighting, poorly made decisions, a meddling ex-president of a husband and no coherent message beyond "it's my turn."

It's a comforting excuse to blame Obama's sexism for Clinton's loss. The flip side of that coin is maybe it was Clinton's racism that contributed to Obama's victory.

Or it just might be that while sexism against a White female and racism against a Black male can't entirely be ruled out, it is a easy out to play the victim card and fall back upon the "isms" instead of examining who ran the superior presidential campaign.

Sexism had a part as to why she lost, but hubris was a bigger contribution. It's nice to have a go-to excuse whenever stuff doesn't go the way you like, but sexism is a wobbly crutch to lean on when the truth is a more basic and fundamental explanation: Obama was the better candidate and got more votes.

Deal with it or don't. All the revisionist history won't change a blessed thing. :rolleyes

He wasn't a better pick, Nt, that's for sure. There was admittedly, a lot of fear of the Clintons in the independents, but those were the Republicans turned Democrat fearfuls. My opinion stands. Clinton outclassed Obama in terms of truth, and was trounced on "pantsuit" headlines and Obama lies. Obama flat out lied about healthcare reform. I knew darn well that he couldn't make it work without making health insurance mandatory, but he lied. Clinton told the truth. Really, for once, will you admit that he lied, because he did. . . .
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Lol!! I'm not a supporter of Angle at all, but I do respect the Tea Party initiative. People want a change in government: a smaller, more responsive government, and the Tea Party represents a variety of interests with that goal in common. Imo, Tea Party candidates were voted in last November because of the disappointment in a president that promised changed, and delivered nothing of substance to the average American. He put out a few fires that probably should've burned, and barely winced when millions of Americans lost their homes, American servicemen/women lost their lives for a crook named Karzai, and the US continued to raise its epic trillion dollar debt. He gives a good speech, no question about that, but he's worse than his predecessor in terms of crushing American liberties, the American middle class and helping the rich get richer. . . .
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
He wasn't a better pick, Nt, that's for sure. There was admittedly, a lot of fear of the Clintons in the independents, but those were the Republicans turned Democrat fearfuls. My opinion stands. Clinton outclassed Obama in terms of truth, and was trounced on "pantsuit" headlines and Obama lies. Obama flat out lied about healthcare reform. I knew darn well that he couldn't make it work without making health insurance mandatory, but he lied. Clinton told the truth. Really, for once, will you admit that he lied, because he did. . . .

The terrible lie here is Clinton failed based upon sexism rather than the terrible campaign she ran. That's your assertion and you're welcome to it. Just don't ask me to endorse it.


Lol!! I'm not a supporter of Angle at all, but I do respect the Tea Party initiative. People want a change in government: a smaller, more responsive government, and the Tea Party represents a variety of interests with that goal in common. Imo, Tea Party candidates were voted in last November because of the disappointment in a president that promised changed, and delivered nothing of substance to the average American. He put out a few fires that probably should've burned, and barely winced when millions of Americans lost their homes, American servicemen/women lost their lives for a crook named Karzai, and the US continued to raise its epic trillion dollar debt. He gives a good speech, no question about that, but he's worse than his predecessor in terms of crushing American liberties, the American middle class and helping the rich get richer. . . .

The Tea Party's major success has been electing idiots whose primary job is to ensure the rich stay richer.

The Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of greedy rich pricks like the Koch Brothers and Republican ass weasels such as Dick Armey. It's not about smaller government or any of that crap. It's about keeping power and money in the hands of the rich and corporations and they return the favor by bankrolling useful idiots in Washington and the statehouses who wallow in xenophobia and racism.

The Tea Party is a conglomeration of White conservatives who didn't get interested in becoming activists until a Black man was elected president.

That's my opinion and it stands. So is my opinion that supporting a far-right extremist like Sharron Angle is the last thing Hillary Clinton would do.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Lol!! I'm not a supporter of Angle at all, but I do respect the Tea Party initiative. People want a change in government: a smaller, more responsive government, and the Tea Party represents a variety of interests with that goal in common.

The Tea Party started off with small government as a slogan, but the people they elect, the people that head their rallies, and the way they vote belies that. So far, they've been pro-Patriot Act, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the Republicans...except that a higher-than-usual percentage of them seem (IMO), to be batsh-- crazy.

I don't think they stand for anything like "small, responsive government" anymore, because when they voted for the Patriot Act powers to be renewed, when they voted against abortion rights, when they've...well, made pretty much every vote they've made so far...their supporters didn't yell foul. By and large, their supporters seem cool with their voting in favor of government expansion and the protection of government power. Why? I don't get it.

Imo, Tea Party candidates were voted in last November because of the disappointment in a president that promised changed, and delivered nothing of substance to the average American.

Which may be true...but if so, they weren't paying attention to the great lengths the Republicans went to to BLOCK him from doing anything of substance. Yes, he was too willing to back down, too willing to compromise in the name of bipartisanship...the Republicans weren't afraid to play dirty, and Obama was too idealistic. But if he didn't get things done, it was because he refused to FORCE the Republicans to accept what he was pushing, and they did everything in their power to roadblock. Voting for the Republicans because their cynical tactics worked is, IMO, rewarding everything that's wrong about Washington and punishing someone who was TRYING to play the game right.

He put out a few fires that probably should've burned, and barely winced when millions of Americans lost their homes, American servicemen/women lost their lives for a crook named Karzai, and the US continued to raise its epic trillion dollar debt.

"Barely winced?" I guess a supporter could call that "remaining calm," "keeping a steady hand," or whatever. But, really, BOP, what sort of emotional response would you have felt was more befitting of a president? Obviously, you don't like his handling of these situations, and yeah, he's dealing with more than his fair share of crisis...most of them entirely out of his hands. But I disagree with your characterization.

He gives a good speech, no question about that, but he's worse than his predecessor in terms of crushing American liberties, the American middle class and helping the rich get richer. . . .
Your opinion...and I utterly disagree with you.

You can respond to me or not...but I'm going to drop this as it's so far outside the context of the thread.

My point was, if you look at who heads Tea Party rallies, who Tea Partiers vote in and how those people vote once they are in...they seem to be Republicans. They don't have a real platform, and whatever they said they stood for in the beginning, it no longer seems to hold true.

So when Sharron Angle says she's running on a Tea Party platform...what does that mean, anymore?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Tea party is the new term for neoconservative, since that fell out of favor.

Sorta like progressive is the new liberal. :D