Sharron Angle Wants The Press To Be Her Friend

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, tea party, Video

This is funny for so many reasons…



First, if you’re Carl Cameron you have to feel kind of embarrassed at this transparent admission that Fox News should just play ball and walk through Angle’s talking points.

Second, if you’re Fox News, well, can you hear that echo?

Third, if you’re a member of the Tea Party or a conservative who would consider voting for her…that has to give you a slight bit of pause. Especially since you’re all about freedoms, one of the most important being a free press.

But let’s hear what you think. Was she just kidding? Is angle savvier than we think?

Sound off!


This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 and is filed under Media, tea party, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to “Sharron Angle Wants The Press To Be Her Friend”

  1. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Sharron Angle Wants The Press To Be Her Friend -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: Sharron Angle Wants The Press To Be Her Friend http://ow.ly/18q6dl [...]

  2. Jason Says:

    Seriously, I was always hoping and praying for a third party that would have momentum and fight the cause of the middle of the road’ers. But instead we get this – a new ‘party’ or ‘caucus’ full of completely loons, the dregs of our political system.

    Personally, I think she is being dead serious. The right have complained about the press. Palin uses ‘them’ as a stepping stone to make her own useless points. Angle doesn’t even have that ability.

    Frankly, a part of me WANTS Angle, Palin, etc all in office. Let’s just get it out of our system. Of course, if the economy was worse after their reign, they’d just blame everyone else but themselves. But the fact that America even entertains this group and let’s their nonsensical ideas be a part of legitimate conversations says we have a lot to learn these days.

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    This most likely won’t hurt her as much as it should.

    It was already clear to me prior to this that Angle and her people are all about a carefully crafted brand. IMO If you can’t handle all the questions, then you’re a hothouse flower, an orchid that will croak in the real world environment. But so many of her prospective supporters are living in the hothouse themselves, and they are suspicious and resentful of the world outside.

    Folks like Angle are living off of conservative anti-media hostility. They can show up at events with carefully controlled populations, and all the songs they sing will be from the pre-approved hymnal.No one will be told anything that they are uncomfortable hearing. No tough insights about our problems will be offered. Deficits and the poor economy will be blamed on Obama and nascent socialism.

    It occurs to me that now is as good a time as any for liberals and progressives (and even appalled moderates) to unite behind a plan to join the Republican Party for the 2012 election in order to ensure that Sara Palin wins the nomination. She is without a doubt the candidate that the GOP deserves.

  4. gerryf Says:

    The Tea Party is not about “freedom” so cross that off your list. The Tea Party is about obtaining and keeping power and is just the latest mechanism of the right wing of herding the an eclectic collection of sometimes well-meaning-sometimes hate-mongering, but almost all ignorent.

    You’ve got your manipulators like the Boehners, McConnells, Cantors, Limbaughs and Hannities who use these people to achieve other ends while promising a lot but only occassionally throwing them a bone. And then you’ve got your true believes like Angles, Bachmans and Harris who get propped up and manipulated but ultimately haven’t a clue what is happening around them.

    It would be something to see these Tea Partiers actually wake up and see that they are being used, but 35 years of watching the christian right get yanked around has convinced me it will never happen.

  5. mw Says:

    Sharron Angle is a terrible candidate with chronic foot-in-mouth disease. She represents a blown opportunity for the GOP. The had a great shot to knock off Harry Reid, but with Angle as the opposition – he’ll probably be re-elected. This election could wind up as the difference between the GOP retaking the Senate or not.

    In general I think the Tea Party effect has been a pretty good one for the GOP in the primaries. It seemed to have the effect of calibrating the candidates – knocking off establishment candidates with more conservative entries in very conservative states like Utah and Kentucky – where the GOP is going to win regardless – but supporting the more moderate candidates like Fiorina in Ca and Scott in Ma – where only a moderate to liberal has a chance. But they blew it in Nevada.

    The really surprising thing is that this race remains as close as it is. 48-44 among likely voters. Nevadans are facing a true lesser of two evils decision. Many are apparently deciding that sending a gaffe-prone political lightweight to the Senate would be less damaging to the country and Nevada than re-electing a Harry Reid and a rubber stamp for the Obama agenda. Probably won’t be enough for Angle, but turnout could make the difference.

  6. the Word Says:

    Again-Isn’t there a level of bat-shit crazy we should all be able to agree on? And mw, rubber stamp is only a valid criticism when there is any variety of thought and action in a replacement. I’ve seen no indication of independent thought in the GOP in decades. Which party votes more in lockstep the GOP or the Democrats?

  7. Simon Says:

    I agree with MW, although my opinion of the tea party is lukewarm; Conservative-libertarian populism is still populism. The Nevada election is not about electing Sharron Angle but defeating Harry Reid. To the extent Angle is the means to accomplish that, I support voting against Reid through a vote for Angle. People have to get a grip on reality and move past the juvenile notion that elections are about choosing the candidate they like best among a field of good candidates.

    I’d like to see a few empirical studies on the question raised by The Word about which party votes more in lockstep.

  8. michael mcEachran Says:

    Angel has the scariest smile in politics. She means everything she says. I think it’s 100% apparent and turning off voters. Harry Reid is one seriously lucky candidate.

  9. kranky kritter Says:

    The Nevada election is not about electing Sharron Angle but defeating Harry Reid. To the extent Angle is the means to accomplish that, I support voting against Reid through a vote for Angle. People have to get a grip on reality and move past the juvenile notion that elections are about choosing the candidate they like best among a field of good candidates.

    Simon, I really gotta ask. Why is it juvenile to want the best candidate amonf several qualified ones, but it’s implicitly not juvenile to say that a given election is about defeating incumbent x. Those seem like 2 faces of the same coin to me. It seems very juvenile to support a lousy candidate only because you despise the incumbent. Though I do grant that obviously in the end you have to pick from what’s on the menu.

    Angle seems to be a terrible enough candidate that anyone with a brian would have real concerns about supporting her. You seem to be suggesting that Angle deserves votes because she’s be a useful idiot for the GOP. Is that about right?

  10. Simon Says:

    kk, it’s juvenile to blindly believe that an election is something other than what it is for no better reason than you would prefer it to be so.

    As Bierce noted, a cynic is one whose faulty vision insists on showing him the world as it really is. The fact is that neither party has nominated someone worth voting for at a Presidential level since Reagan in 1984. The last six have been exercises in defeating the worst alternative, and I suspect that plays out to an extent in races around the country at every level. Maybe once or twice in a lifetime, someone comes along who is a great statesman who deserves your support. But government can’t sit in idle waiting on them, so the rest of the time, you just have to sift the bad from the mediocre.

    And sifting is what Nevadans must do. Angle is mediocre; Reid is terrible. It’s not that “Angle deserves votes because she’[d] be a useful idiot for the GOP,” it’s that Reid must be defeated and Angle is the only vehicle through which that goal can be accomplished. As you elegantly put it, you have to pick from what’s on the menu. Politics is not à la carte.

  11. the Word Says:

    Reagan was a mediocre actor (and IMO a bad President) That would be an accurate use of the word. Angle is an abysmal candidate would be accurate. I had been impressed by your vocabulary but rarely your judgement. I guess there is nothing left.

    As to Reid, IMO he would also fill the bill for mediocre. If he were to lose the election and Democrats retained control of the Senate I will predict that the person who replaces him will be demonized in the same way so that you can sell the stupid on another bogeyman. They can’t all be the worst or the most liberal. It makes the words meaningless.

  12. the Word Says:

    @Simon
    I missed your point about Reagan though. We are in agreement, he wasn’t worth voting for in 1980 either.

  13. Simon Says:

    The Word, do you understand what the word “since” means? I said that “neither party has nominated someone worth voting for at a Presidential level since Reagan in 1984″ (emphasis changed). So my previous comment said nothing about 1980, and FTR, we are not in agreement about his worthiness in 1980.

    Incidentally, Reid isn’t the worst member of the Senate, Dick Durbin is. And by happy coincidence, Durbin is likely to succeed Reid if Reid loses. So the answer is yes, the odds are that we will call Reid’s replacement the worst member of the Senate—not because he is Reid’s replacement, but because he’ll be Dick Durbin.

  14. the Word Says:

    Reagan was nominated in 1980, and John Anderson (The last intelligent, honest Republican) was 100 times the man Reagan was. Voting occurs after nomination so I guess you can parse since any way you’d like. Durbin seems like an honorable guy to me I understand why you’d have an issue with him.

  15. the Word Says:

    Just when you think she’s said the dumbest thing ever, she keeps talking.

    “I know people are very frightened about what’s going on in this country,” Angle said in an interview that originally aired on April 21 with TruNews Christian Radio’s Rick Wile. “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. And you’ve just identified the real crux of the problem.”

    What a fruitcake!

  16. kranky kritter Says:

    As Bierce noted, a cynic is one whose faulty vision insists on showing him the world as it really is.

    And we should rely on the misanthropic comic cynic’s def’n of cynic? I go as far as deep skepticism. And I reserve the appelation cynicism for those who cross the line into making the most negative and most bad faith interpretations of things.

    Every cynic thinks that they are “just being realistic.” They can never seen how far they’e fallen i their dimmest views of human nature.

    It’s not that “Angle deserves votes because she’[d] be a useful idiot for the GOP,” it’s that Reid must be defeated and Angle is the only vehicle through which that goal can be accomplished.

    Well if your premise (Reid must be defeated) really is in fact correct, then obviously it follows that one must vote for Angle. No schite, sherlock! Apparently however, Nevadans currently are not persuaded that Angle is an improvement. THEIR hypothesis is that Reid must be defeated if and only if the replacement represents an improvement.

    Good for them if they can see that despite Reid’s obvious shortcoming, Angle is out of her league running for congress. She’s incapable of anything resembling sophisticated adult thought. She’s no more than a cant machine.

  17. kranky kritter Says:

    @word

    A Clash album comes to mind: Give ‘Em Enough Rope.

    All Reid has to do is let Angle keep talking.

    And for every incumbent democrat getting clobbered by “people are afraid about what’s happening to this country” all you have to do is agree wholeheartedly. And then ask Americans to look back a little bit further than the election of Barack Obama.

    People are afraid because the economy is still in awful shape. Everyone has a friend out of work, and many of those who still have jobs worry they could be next. Some conservative zealots want to be afraid for the future because we’ve passed healthcare reform, new financial regulations, and spent a ton of borrowed money. Much of which, BTW was approved by republicans when we passed a big bailout and first really swelled the budget. Unless you have a really short memory, being worried about where the country is headed HAS TO make you just as afraid of Republicans as Democrats.

  18. gerryf Says:

    And sifting is what Nevadans must do. Angle is mediocre; Reid is terrible. It’s not that “Angle deserves votes because she’[d] be a useful idiot for the GOP,” it’s that Reid must be defeated and Angle is the only vehicle through which that goal can be accomplished…..

    Wow.

    Simon,

    I once had some semblance of respect for your posts, but you just went tumbling down the ladder, bub (not that you care what I or anyone thinks of you).

    Starting with Angle is mediocre: seriously, if you as what I thought was a coherent member of the right thinks Angle rises to the level of mediocrity; it just frightens the crap out of me.

    As for Reid is terrible: Terrible how?

    I am not a big fan of Reid. His pork barreling to build a bridge to somewhere (Arizona, as opposed to Palin’s bridge to nowhere) using property he had a stake in rubs me the wrong way. His legislation and supposed pressure to help out a buddy and boss to his son in building a golf course development, likewise, stinks to high heaven. Beyond that, he has been a fairly mediocre senator UNTIL he became senate majority leader.

    Since becoming senate majority leader, he has actually been fairly adept at getting legislation through a difficult senate and when not getting it through, has shown some acumen by keeping issues alive.

    Indeed, if the legislative successes of the past year belong to anyone, they belong to Reid and Pelosi more than Obama.

  19. Simon Says:

    Word, a simple admission that you don’t understand what “since” means would have done the same job in fewer words. The 1980 election didn’t since after 1984.

    KK, I can grant that to the extent cynicism can be taken too far into delusional hostility to everything, it’s a bad thing. It marred George Carlin’s last years. But it’s not cynical, it’s not presuming bad faith, and it’s not making a judgment on human nature, to observe that elections are a zero sum game. It’s math. One candidate will win. Common sense dictates that the best candidate should win, but best is not coterminous with good–right? You have to pick from what’s on the menu.

  20. Simon Says:

    Gerry:

    As for Reid is terrible: Terrible how?

    Wrong about almost everything, an embarrassment to the Senate (which, I concede, does not set him apart from most Senators these days), an instinctive habit of misrepresenting opponents and their arguments, an unbearably sanctimonious mien, and many other sins.

  21. gerryf Says:

    What is he wrong about? Is he wrong on the facts, or just doesn’t agree with your particular point of view?

    How is he an embarrassment to the senate? Putting aside for the moment that the senate is an embarrassment to the senate, what has he done to embarrass the senate?

    How does he misrepresent opponents and arguments? I actually think you may be able to dig something up here, but your lack of specifics makes this a talking point not a legitimate charge.

    How is he sanctimonious? Once again, example?

    Unless you can actually point to an example, these are just meaningless charges.

  22. theWord Says:

    Word, a simple admission that you don’t understand what “since” means would have done the same job in fewer words. The 1980 election didn’t since after 1984.

    Can’t imagine anyone having difficulty parsing that statement. The fact remains, regardless of your vocabulary it is like masturbation it serves no constructive purpose for you. I still have no clue what your “point” is. I am fairly certain it will be pointless regardless though.

  23. Jason Says:

    Tea Party and Fox News should also have their stand whether they will have to go for her or not. Anyway, they have the freedom to choose whether her or not. And to be exact, I don’t think its fair to interrogate such things like that she either keep herself shut rather than asking the press to be part of her aim.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: