And still more on the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I have been following this story for so long, I thought I might as well close the loop. This is the one about the Sept. 13th special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, which, you may recall, is necessary because former Rep. Dean Heller was appointed to the Senate to replace John Ensign, who resigned amidst a sex scandal having to do with the wife of a staffer.

In Nevada, for reasons unclear to me, a primary cannot be used to determine party candidates for special elections. The Secretary of State of Nevada, Ross Miller (D), initially ruled that multiple Republicans and Democrats could run to fill the vacant seat, which meant that a Democrat might be able to sneak through with many candidates running in what is traditionally a Republican seat. This was what they were calling the Battle Royale scenario.

If this is starting to get confusing, just consider that if many Democratic and Republican candidates ran, it could allow an unexpected result, which might have been the only way a Democrat could win.

Anyway, the court ruled on July 5th that parties could in fact choose a singular candidate to run under their party banner, which is what will happen.

It seems as well that both parties have already determined their nominees. Republican Mark Amodei, of the really weird "China will take over America if we raise the debt ceiling" political ad, will take on Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall.

Not that it matters anymore, but nut job Tea Party darling Sharron Angle had been in the running earlier but dropped out for reasons only known to herself.

I don't know that the Democrats can't win the seat, but having a crazy person like Angle in the mix or a quirky Battle Royale scenario might have been their best hope. A Democrats has never won a general election for the 2nd District since the district was created after the 1980 census.

Not to go on about this, though I see that I already have, but the most interesting part of this whole story may be the extent to which local courts can have an impact on electoral outcomes. I'm no expert on election law, but it does vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and, as we know, especially in general elections, both sides have teams of lawyers ready to swoop in at the slightest hint of impropriety or, shall we say, at the opportunity to create impropriety.

What was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers in Henry VI?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Yet another update on the Nevada 2nd special election -- Sharron Angle is out

By Richard K. Barry

 

Somehow I missed a development in the special election coming this fall to fill the Nevada 2nd Congressional seat vacated by Dean Heller when he replaced John Ensign in the U.S. Senate after Ensign resigned amid an ethics inquiry.

The big news is that, Sharron Angle, Tea Party star, and failed Nevada Senate candidate, has decided not to seek the seat after seriously gearing up to take a shot at it.

It's all very interesting, with elements of local intrigue, but it boiled down to the fact that a judge ruled that the political parties must pick their candidate, one candidate per party, for the ballot to take place on Sept. 13th.

This overturned Secretary of State Ross Miller's earlier decision that anyone could run in what would have amounted to a free-for-all.

As it seemed unlikely that Angle would get the Republican Party nod, she apparently decided she didn't like the odds of running in a field that would include a GOP sanctioned nominee. Instead, she was clearly hoping for a very crowded field in which she might benefit from a strong Tea Party base and good vote splits.

Democrats were also hoping for the free-for-all scenario on the same theory that many candidates could potentially split the conservative vote in a way beneficial to them.

But it's not over yet as the Nevada Supreme Court will hear arguments on June 28th. There is even some talk that the Sept. 13th election might be delayed to give the court more time to render a decision.

Currently, 28 candidates have filed to run, including 14 Republicans and 9 Democrats.

Still hard to know what will happen here, both in the courts and at the ballot box. I should note that McCain took the district by a slim 88 votes against Obama out of 335,720 cast in 2008, though the Republican (Heller) took the Congressional race by more than 10% in the same year.

It's interesting that Angle dropped out before the case wound its way through the courts.

Here is what she had to say, as reported in the National Journal:

Current outcomes concerning the special election have made this election in Nevada an illegitimate process that disenfranchises the electorate. Clearly, no solution that the Supreme Court can make will correct the injury to free and open elections caused by ambiguous laws and subsequent lawsuits. 

While criticizing back room deals by a "select group of people" she also indicated that she didn't want to run in a free-for-all scenario either, which are the only options currently under consideration by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Now it seems that the only process she would accept is a primary system, which is disallowed by Nevada state law.

Who know? It sounds like she didn't like the way things were shaping up and decided to take a hike by pissing in all directions.

Angle has thus far given no clear indication of future plans. Too bad, if only for the entertainment value. She certainly puts on a good show - crazy, but good.

What I find most interesting in all of this, though, is the length to which the GOP establishment may be willing to go to ensure they don't repeat the mistakes of 2010 with crazy Tea Party-backed candidates.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The strange case of the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

 
This has received some coverage, but in the event that people haven't focused on it, there has been an interesting development in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District.

You may recall that this is the seat vacated by Dean Heller, who was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval to fill out the remainder of John Ensign's Senate term. Ensign resigned in disgrace after having admitted an affair with the wife of one of his senior aids. It may come as no surprise, by the way, that Heller, Sandoval, and Ensign are all Republicans.

What makes this one interesting is that, in Nevada, state law stipulates that there can be no primary to narrow down the choices that would run under a party banner, as usually happens in other jurisdictions.

But other than the prohibition on a primary, it was not immediately clear how the law would be applied. In other words, there was ambiguity as to whether all comers would be allowed to run for the vacated seat, or whether state party committees would be allowed to pick one candidate to run as "the" Democrat and "the" Republican.

Given the fact that this is a district where the Republicans are strong, it's not surprising that Republicans were hoping that the rules would be interpreted according to the second option, that they be allowed to pick one person to run as their standard bearer so that the vote is not split. Since Democrats would be a longer shot, they likely wanted the first option that anyone be allowed to run. Clearly they are hoping that many candidates would split the vote in strange ways and perhaps allow a Democrat to sneak up the middle.

Well, last Monday, the Secretary of State for Nevada, Ross Miller, who just happens to be a Democrat, interpreted the rules to say that anyone can run. The Republicans are up in arms saying that this was a partisan decision sure to favour Democrats. So far, at least three Democrats have expressed an interest in running as have five Republicans, but there are likely to be more.

To thicken the plot, failed Nevada Senate candidate and Tea Party "star" from 2010, Sharron Angle, is one of the Republicans determined to run. She has even suggested that the mainstream Republican establishment would have preferred to choose a candidate so they could avoid having her run on the general theory that the mainstream GOP is always trying to thwart the goals of the Tea Party movement. It could also be that Angle is crazy and that actually sane Republicans don't want Angle to do in this congressional race what she did in the Senate race - lose a sure thing. That could be it too.

That's where things stand. The election is on September 13th.

As an aside, I can't help but quote from a fundraising letter on Angle's website complaining that the Nevada Republican Party is trying to keep her out. It read in part:

The Democrats want this seat. The left-wing of the Republican Party wants it more. Instead of an open process, already they are behind closed doors, choosing one of their own to be the preferred candidate in the race.

Did any phrase jump out at you? Perhaps, "left-wing of the Republican Party." That really says something about the Tea Party. They actually think the Republican Party has a left wing. Imagine.

So the decision has been made by the State of Nevada and Angle can run along with what may be many others. It may actually turn out, as it sometimes does in wide-open races, that the one with the greatest name recognition does the best. It may not be that easy, however, as Nevada GOP chairman Mark Amodei and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki are considering entering the race.

As for the Democrats, it is true they have never held this district, but Obama lost in it in 2008 by only 89 votes, so, with crazy splits and a crazy Republican in the mix, who knows.

What we do know is that we will now be blessed with yet another campaign full of fun pronouncements from Ms. Angle. I'm sure the Nevada Republican Party is thrilled.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Books by failed Republican candidates

By: R.K. Barry

I'm not sure any of us were waiting for this, but Christine O'Donnell, failed Delaware Republican Senate candidate, has a new book. Yes, it's called Trouble Maker: Let's Do What it Takes to Make America Great Again.

You may recall that Ms. O'Donnell took what was supposed to be an easy GOP pickup and single handedly turned it into a Democratic win. Not only does she have the clear gratitude of Christopher Coons, the successful Democratic, but also of so many of the rest of us, who wanted desperately to keep the Senate out of Republican control. Thank you Christine.

If her book can help other conservatives learn how to fail as she has so spectacularly done, I hope it is widely read.

My favourite line from the article promoting the book, which, by the way, appears on Sean Hannity's website, is that "[t]hough she didn't win the general election, O'Donnell did win the designation of 2010's Most Covered Candidate."

We all know the old adage about it not mattering what they say about you as long as they spell your name right. But I don't think that helps when they spell your name correctly in the same sentence that has you declaring that you are not a witch. Yes, Christine, you were the most covered candidate. How'd that work out for ya?

And, not to be outdone, I see that failed Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle is also writing a book. Adorably enough, this one is going to be called Right Angle.

Another Republican who took a "sure thing" GOP win and turned it into rat shit. More wisdom we can only hope the Tea Party and their ilk absorb in liberal doses.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Out, out, damned spot

By Capt. Fogg

I saw this clip on The Impolitic this morning: Sharron Angle having a bit of a smugfest about how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Ben Franklin really wanted us to have the uninfringable right to own firearms, not to facilitate raising a militia, as was stated, or to put food on the table or keep the fox out of the henhouse, but to protect us against tyrannical despots demanding to provide us with affordable health care.



To be fair, I'd like to know the rest of the sentence starting "we need to take Harry Reid out. . ." Vote him out of his elected position, or just "take him out?"

Inquiring minds want to know, but batshit crazies with their hairy ears glued to the radio don't bother to ask. They already know. One has already spoken and as in Mao's famous statement about the voice of revolution -- from the muzzle of a gun. Indeed many self styled conservatives seem to have read intensively from the little red book.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for the nonce, but although Jefferson did indeed, how literally I don't know, suggest further revolutions, one would have a hard time convincing me the system he helped design wasn't intended to facilitate that process bloodlessly and with due process of law.

The bit about guns being needed to protect against "tyranny?" to allow the minority to have bloody revenge for the actions of elected representatives? Sorry, Sharron, this is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech and perhaps even further into the territory of treason, if fomenting armed insurrection against an elected government be such.

It recalls Henry II crying "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Not exactly a demand that someone kill Thomas à Becket, but someone soon did and Hank got to wash his hands of the matter. Whether it be the king of England, the Queen of Scotland or a Prefect of Roman Judea, some bloody bastard is always seeking such cleanliness, but that damned spot usually proves rather difficult to remove.

(Cross posted from Human voices)

Will Harry Reid pull out victory from the jaws of defeat at the hands of Sharron Angle and the GOP's Tea Party extreme?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Throughout this campaign season, I have followed Jon Ralston's coverage of the Nevada Senate race at the Las Vegas Sun closely. The man knows what he's talking about, and his coverage has been excellent. He gets why Reid is so unpopular and why, mired in a thoroughly uninspiring campaign, he has had so many problems arousing enthusiasm in his favor, and why Angle, despite her Tea Party extremism and craziness, has managed not just to stay in the race but to surge ahead after being way ahead in June and then falling behind as Reid successfully defined her as a crazy extremist.

And so I take seriously Ralston's latest assessment of how things stand:

It just feels as if Reid is going to lose.

Forget the enthusiasm gap — that word is too mild. There is a passion gap in this race that is palpable. You don't find many people shivering with excitement to vote for Reid. But the feverish animation of voters hot to oust Reid is unlike anything I have experienced in nearly 25 years of covering politics. And it seems to have been building since January, evidenced by Reid's inability to move his highly elevated disapproval rating.

It just feels as if he is going to lose.

And yet... Ralston actually thinks Reid will pull it out. He admits that, with this predictions, he's "walking out on a limb," but both the data and his gut are telling him Reid will win:

Considering they were dealing with a moribund politician, and one who was sure to make their job more difficult during the year with his spontaneous effusions, Reid’s handlers have run one of the most spectacular campaigns in history at all levels: The turnout machine is formidable. The TV has been pitch perfect. The strategy — to peel moderate Republicans and independents who might not like their guy away from Angle — has worked.

And, perhaps equally important, Republicans managed to nominate the one person this year who could lose to Reid.

*****

In the end, if she loses, I believe the six weeks following the GOP nominee’s primary win — she had a double-digit lead in June polls — were pivotal. During that period, the Reid ad campaign defined her so starkly and turned enough people into Anglophobes to give him a chance.

One more thing: Republicans do not have the huge turnout advantage in early voting they should in a wave election — under 4 points. And all the data I have seen tell me that unless Reid loses independents by 15 points or so, he will hold on.

Ralston things it'll be 47-45 for Reid. I have no great love for Reid, and I don't much care for him as Senate majority leader, but I really, really, really hope Ralston's right. The thought of Angle in the Senate, that supposedly august Madisonian body of deliberation, fills me with repulsion. Sure, there are Republican extremists there already -- DeMint, Coburn, etc. -- but Angle would add astounding stupidity that that extremism.

Happy Halloween.

Just how desperate is Meg Whitman?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well behind in the polls in her California gubernatorial race against Jerry Brown, desperate enough to pull what my friend Joe Gandelman, a Californian, called a "Hail Meg."

Apparently trying to stir up votes on the racist, nativist right, she sunk into the gutter and called for her former housekeeper, revealed during the campaign to be an illegal immigrant, to be deported.

Here's Joe's take, and I have to agree:

In what can only be seen now as a last minute high-stakes gamble, Meg Whitman has now... suddenly... after not calling for it before... called for her former housekeeper to be deported. Note that even The Politico reporter seems a bit aghast at the transparent political motive of this days-before-the-election gambit:

California GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman says her former housekeeper should be deported.

Whitman — down 10 percentage points in the latest Field Poll after spending over $140 million of her own money on the campaign — said Nicky Diaz should be forced to leave the country for lying about her illegal status.

The following passage also gives you a perfect example of crocodile tears — or, perhaps more accurately, crock tears:

"It breaks my heart, but she should be deported because she forged documents, and she lied about her immigration status," Whitman told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday night.

"And it breaks my heart," she added. "Gloria Allred pulled off a political stunt. And you know what? On November 3rd, no one's going to care about Nicky Diaz. But the law is the law, and we live in the rule of law. It's important." 

Whitman has previously declined to say whether she thinks Diaz should remain in the country after Diaz publicly accused the former eBay CEO earlier this month of knowingly employing her despite her illegal status. 

But now — just coincidentally, mind you... the timing of the election a few days has nothing to do with it... the fact that she was booed at a forum when she refused to go along with Jerry Brown in agreeing to Matt Lauer's call for the two rivals to pull negative ads had nothing to do with it... the fact that the big buck ads she spent have not really advanced her cause and her numbers have been going down have nothing to do with it — she has called for her housekeeper to be kicked out of the country.

It'll be interesting to see if this will improve her polls. But even the most conservative voters in California may be turned off by a move as seemingly transparently, cravenly political as this one.

Who knows? Maybe conservatives will like this. They're not big on Mexicans, after all.

I would just note that this isn't just a "transparently, cravenly political" move, it's what Republicans do. When the going gets tough, they scapegoat, lashing out at the Other. Remember Bush I's Willie Horton ad in 1988? Or how about what Sharron Angle is doing in Nevada this year, targeting Mexicans as a bunch of murderers and rapists intent on invading white America?

What Whitman is doing -- to someone who was close to her for years -- may be less ugly but is certainly no less despicable, given how personal it is. She's actually trying to destroy this person's life, putting her political ambition above all else, pandering to the far right (the mainstream of the GOP) to try to claw back at all cost into a race she's losing.

How very desperate. And how very Republican of her.

When independents turn stupid (and vote for Republican extremists)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There are a number of reasons why Republicans will win next Tuesday, likely taking back the House (if not the Senate) and doing very well at the state level. The so-called "enthusiasm gap" is a big reason, with anti-government yet also theocratic Tea Party-led Republicans frothing at the mouth, as is the general and thoroughly irrational anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the country. But it seems that "independents," that ever-so-important group, are also pushing this election to the GOP.

As Time is reporting, new polls show independents helping Republicans to the lead in four key Senate races:

-- In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey is leading Joe Sestak 49-45.

-- In Kentucky, Rand Paul is leading Jack Conway 50-43.

-- In Colorado, Ken Buck is leading Michael Bennet 47-46.

-- In Nevada, Sharron Angle is leading Harry Reid 49-45.

Of course, independents are not the only group, or demographic, pushing these Republicans over the top. In Nevada, for example, Angle maintains "sizable margins among males, white voters and voters over 50." And, of course, these are four somewhat purple states where state-wide Republicans wins aren't at all surprising. It makes some sense, even if their specific policies/views do not, that Paul's libertarianism is popular, that Angle is ahead of a deeply unpopular incumbent (and Democratic leader), and that Buck may pull out a victory in a flip-flopping state that can usually go either way. Even Toomey's lead is understandable. Pennsylvania can be described as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between. It's a purple state that is Democratic only because of its two metropolises. When the urban vote isn't there, Republicans can win.

I say that it "makes some sense," but at least three of these four are ideological extremists who shouldn't win, ever. I'll leave Toomey off that list, though he too has embraced the far right, such as on climate change. And, poor economy and anti-incumbent sentiment aside, it makes absolutely no sense that these three are leading, solidly, among independents -- most of whom, presumably, are more or less in the wishy-washy center, and who should be swayed against such Republican extremism even if they don't much care for what Democrats have to offer either.

Take Buck, for example, who is an anti-gay bigot and a theocrat who objects to the separation of church and state. Or Angle, whose sheer craziness, as she has proven throughout this campaign, is enormous. In this year of collective voter ignorance and insanity, of fear, anger, and bitterness dominating the political landscape and motivating voters to make terrible choices, it's almost surprising that independents aren't putting the supremely unqualified Christine O'Donnell over the top in Delaware. In some states, like Delaware and New York, where the anti-gay bigot and wealthy teabagger Carl Paladino will get crushed in the gubernatorial race, I suppose not even delusional independents are enough.

This, of course, would not be the first time that voters turned stupid. But while we can expect Republicans to embrace the most partisan and most ideologically extreme of their kind, independents are supposed to know better, are they not? Well, no. Some may suppose that they do, but they don't. The David Broder-influenced media drool all over independents, giving them a place of prominence they don't deserve, as if they are by far the most important voters in America, but, really, they often don't much of a clue and are easily manipulated, this year by Republican propaganda.

Call me a cynic, but I think this Family Guy clip about undecided (and hence more or less independent) voters (which I found here), with Lois running for mayor against incumbent Adam West and, on Brian's advice, resorting to GOP-style appeals to idiocy ("Jesus," "9/11" -- you might as well put "tax cuts" in there, too), says it all:

Why does Ken Buck hate America? Republican Talibanism and the conservative effort to destroy the separation of church and state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ken Buck, the Colorado Republican who thinks that gays are like alcoholics, said last year that he objected to a fundamental principle of American constitutional democracy:

I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution.

Now, he rightly noted that the Constitution bars "a religion that's sanctioned by the government," but, in his view, that "doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion." He specifically criticized President Obama for (supposedly) calling it a "holiday tree" instead of a Christmas tree.

But that's exactly the point, albeit on a minor scale. Government shouldn't, and isn't allowed to, support one religion before or against all others. Now, I actually don't have a problem with calling it a Christmas tree. It's true, of the course, that the "Christmas" season has become more of a generic "holiday" season, a season that American can celebrate in different ways, some secular, some not. But a tree at that time of year is historically a Christmas tree, just as a Menorah is Jewish, though, of course, non-Christians can still celebrate the holiday with a tree, and that was Obama's point, the point of the separation of church and state. If you want to call it a Christmas tree and celebrate (the myth of) Jesus of Nazareth's birth, fine, that's up to you. But if you want to call it a holiday tree, spend time with your family, exchange gifts, and enjoy the season according to your own values, however non-Christian or vaguely Christian, that's fine too. Welcome to America. Welcome to a free society that puts liberty before government promoting a specific faith.

All of this, though, is beside the point -- or, rather, an obfuscation of the point. Think Progress gets to the heart of the matter:

Needless to say, while the Constitution doesn't contain the exact words "separation of church and state," legal scholars and the courts agree it does prohibit the establishment or endorsement of religion, and that the involvement Buck wants is dangerous. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a concurring opinion in 1984, the government is prohibited from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." In 1801, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God," and argued the Constitution required "building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Also, Buck's charge about Obama and the White House Christmas tree doesn't rise above the level of a crude viral e-mail hoax: or in the words of FactCheck.org, "hooey."

That's right, it's all a lie, one that Buck, ignorant or not, was obviously more than willing to spread. While Obama would have been justified to call it a holiday tree, he didn't. It was a traditional Christmas tree.

And that's Sandra Day O'Connor who wrote that opinion -- a Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court.

And that's Thomas Jefferson, a rather more impressive authority than Ken Buck, who interpreted the Constitution as requiring a clear separation of church and state.

But Buck is hardly alone in seeking to undermine one of the foundations of America, as Steve Benen, an expert on this issue, reminds us:

Of course, if this sounds familiar, it's because we've seen and heard quite a few attacks these First Amendment principles lately. Delaware's Christine O'Donnell recently humiliated herself during a debate by rejecting the separation of church state as a constitutional principle, and Nevada's Sharron Angle recently made very similar remarks. Last week, Rush Limbaugh denounced the very idea of church-state separation, and in April, former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) rejected any notion that "God should be separated from the state."

I just wrote up a lengthy item on the history here a few days ago, so I won't re-hash it again. Needless to say, the separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of the American system of government, and the foundation for the greatest experiment in religious liberty the world has ever known.

And he asks an important question:

But putting aside the fact that these unhinged Republicans simply have no idea what they're talking about, I have a related concern: what is it, exactly, they'd replace church-state separation with?

What we're seeing is, to a certain extent, the rise of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party -- the Taliban rails against secularism, and insists that the law must mirror and be based on their interpretation of a religious text. Buck, O'Donnell, Angle, Limbaugh, and Palin have all argued something eerily similar. Thomas Jefferson said the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between church and state," and these Republicans are anxious to tear it down.

Let's say, for the sake of conversation, they succeed. What then? Once the foundation for religious liberty in America is gone, what does Ken Buck suggest we replace it with? There are some countries that endorse Buck's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.

So what do Buck and his ilk have in store for us? A European-style official church? A theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia? Are conservatives who want the government to shrink also telling us they want the state to play a larger role in promoting and "helping" religious institutions?

When the right denounces American the principles that have made us great, they stop being merely wrong, and start becoming even more dangerous.

I think that's exactly right. The Ken Bucks and Christine O'Donnells and Sharron Angles of the Republican Party, the "Taliban wing" of the GOP that more and more is taking over the party, are profoundly dangerous and deeply anti-American, and it's not enough just to laugh at them for being stupid. They pose a threat to American democracy, and to America itself, and to the very idea of "America," that, in a way, far exceeds, is far more nefarious than, and is far more likely to succeed than the threat posed by Islamic jihadism.

For while jihadism seeks to destroy America, or at least to cause significant physical damage to America (and to kill Americans), it comes from outside and can be opposed with actions and policies that seek to destroy it first. Republican Talibanism, in contrast, seeks to undermine America from within, removing enough bricks so that the entire wall comes crumbling down. Jihadists can cause immense damage, but Americans can collectively stand firm and resolute in their conviction that the terrorists will not win (even as they disagree over how best to defeat them). But these Republicans can win elected office, as many of them have already, and inject their virus into the body politic. There may not be an equivalent of 9/11 for these anti-Americans, but that makes what they are doing all the more difficult to detect, and to fight back against. You can have a war on terror, however misguided, but what do you do about the Republican Taliban?

Well, you have to vote against them, of course, and you have to see through their propaganda (or, in some cases, just pay attention to them, given how open about their goals some of them are) to see what they're really all about. If you needed another reason to oppose them when you go to the polls next Tuesday, here you go.

Sharron Angle targets Mexicans, ramping up her campaign of racism and extremism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Remember -- it was just last week -- when GOP extremist Sharron Angle said, incredibly, that her notorious anti-immigrant ad didn't target Mexicans specifically and that "the real problem is the northern border" (that is, Canadians or otherwise those coming into the U.S. from Canada), and when she told a group of Hispanic children that some of them looked Asian to her?

Yeah.

It was clear she was either full of shit (and lying her face off) or completely stupid (and, in the case of the Hispanic children, completely ignorant and insensitive) -- or, more likely, some combination of the two.

Because she's back at it, as Greg Sargent reports:

Here's Sharron Angle's latest ad attacking Harry Reid over illegal immigration. It's a doozy -- it sounds the alarm about "waves of illegal aliens streaming across our border joining violent gangs." And it features the now-familiar imagery of young swarthy men looking generally menacing.

But please note in particular the momentary glimpse we're given at the three second mark of the United States Border Inspection Station at El Paso, Texas:

 

Does she really have no clue what's going on? Does she really have no clue what's in her own TV ads? That may very well be the case. She doesn't seem to have much of a clue about anything.

But check out the look on her face at the beginning of the ad. She attempts a smile, but that's the look of the self-righteous, true-believing extremist, staring off into space, oblivious but also -- dare I use this word? why not, if it applies? -- evil.

Angle can smile, and try to look benign, all she wants. She's proven herself repeatedly to be an ideological fundamentalist of the far right, although well within the current mainstream of the Republican Party. And this ad, presenting bigoted views we've come to expect from her, is just plain ugly. It specifically targets -- and vilifies -- Mexicans, not Canadians (nor others coming from Canada), as the scary Other, as the great threat to Angle's (predominantly and domineeringly white) America:

Waves of illegal aliens streaming across our border, joining violent gangs, forcing families to live in fear.

Note: our "border" -- singular -- not borders. A white family "living in fear." Angle might as well have shown some hulking Mexican man raping a helpless white woman. Just as the black man was once the threat, so, to Angle, is now the Latino (though perhaps also still the black man). There isn't even a racist subtext here. The racism is right on the surface. The ad isn't even really about immigration at all. It's about race, about one race, a dark, ugly race, invading and terrorizing another race, a clean, pure race, Angle's race.

This has been the thrust of Angle's campaign all along, ideological extremism on issues like taxes mixed with racist appeals to voters' racism, latent or otherwise, but it's now front and center.

No wonder prominent state Republicans are lining up behind Harry Reid. No wonder she continues to avoid the press. No wonder the race is... neck-and-neck?

What's crazier, Angle herself or the fact that she might actually win? Surely there are enough Nevadans who see her for what she is and who object to her campaign of racism and extremism?

Or am I wrong about that?

Just how crazy is Sharron Angle? (10) -- Blame Canada edition

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For more craziness from Sharron Angle, click here and scroll down through the previous entries in this ongoing series, along with many other posts detailing her extremism.)

Angle continues to outdo herself. The Las Vegas Sun's Jon Ralston has the latest -- and it's a doozy of a whopper:

If this isn't Sharron Angle, the great revisionist historian, in a nutshell, I'm not sure what is.

In the video clip at right [ed. note: click on the link above to see the clip], you not only can see the GOP U.S. Senate nominee telling a group of Hispanic children at Rancho High School that images of Latinos in her ad that are clearly Latinos may not be. Indeed, the images in the ad are of Hispanics in Mexico, as The Washington Post and others have pointed out. And it is no mystery what race they are, as she claims.

*****

But then she takes it far -- even for her -- by talking about how the real problem is the northern border! Yes, she says it. Listen and watch. So maybe those threatening kids are about to cross the Ambassador Bridge into Detroit for a tryout with the Red Wings?

Here's what she said:

Question: Why is it that in all of your commercials you have the image of Latinos? What do you see when you hear, and I quote, "illegal aliens"?

Angle: I think that you're misinterpreting those commercials. I'm not sure that those are Latinos in that commercial. What it is, is a fence and there are people coming across that fence. What we know is that our northern border is where the terrorists came through. That's the most porous border that we have. We cannot allow terrorists; we cannot allow anyone to come across our border if we don't know why they're coming. So we have to secure all of our borders and that's what that was about, is border security. Not just our southern border, but our coastal border and our northern border.

That's right, apparently we Canadians are the problem. (I'm a Canadian, but most of the other bloggers here are American.)

We're all just swarming across that fence, don't you know. There is a fence between our two countries, isn't there? I mean, because Angle says we're "misinterpretating those commercials." So it must be Canadians.

But it's not just our hockey players. Think about all the great Canadian comedians who terrorize America's airwaves. (Where exactly would SNL have been without Canadians? Nowhere. Thanks, Lorne Michaels. Seriously, we've done a lot for comedy in America, Michaels more than anyone else.)

Or maybe it's Shania Twain who's the problem.

Or those fine actors, William Shatner and Keanu Reeves.

Or James Cameron, who has invaded the world with those pieces of crap known as Titanic and Avatar.

Oh wait. I know...

Celine Dion, perhaps our most embarrassing export. (Quebec, which made her, can have her.) She terrorized Las Vegas for years. We can't blame Angle for seeing her as far worse than anything coming in from Mexico, can we?

WTF, Harry Reid?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sharron Angle is a Democrat's dream come true. Even for an embattled and deeply unpopular Democrat like Harry Reid, she should be easily sent packing. Unlike fellow crazy Christine O'Donnell, she doesn't have the good looks and snappy one-liners that play so well in America's superficial political culture. (We've written about her craziness again and again -- click here and scroll down.) And so it takes a massive implosion to look bad in juxtaposition, and that is precisely what happened to Reid last night:

Why Harry Reid agreed to have a debate with Sharron Angle is a bit of a mystery to me. If your campaign is based on portraying your opponent as loony, then why give that opponent a chance to look reasonable? Lyndon Johnson never debated Barry Goldwater. Then again, I'm no political strategist. And neither, I've come to see, is Harry Reid. So let's focus on what matters now: that a debate was held in Nevada last night between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle. And its upshot was -- sorry, folks -- that Angle improved her chances.

I'm not suggesting that Sharron Angle, having been granted the opportunity to look reasonable, looked reasonable. On the contrary, she was very much herself -- smiling maniacally in her crimson suit and hurling out bizarre fictions. But she looked reasonable enough. Lies about policy don't really hurt you in a debate, especially when they're voiced with conviction. What hurts you is looking evasive and squishy. Sharron Angle provided the lies. Harry Reid provided the squish. 

That's right, the Senate majority leader, an experienced politician who should know better, lost a debate that he didn't need to have to one of the archetypes of 2010 Republican insanity. 

Oh sure, it wasn't entirely Reid's fault. A political culture in which lies play well is a sick political culture, one that rewards extremism-with-conviction over wishy-washy reasonableness. And, too, as Kevin Drum put it, "Angle may have benefited from galactically low expectations."

But still. You have to be something of a loser to lose to Angle, and, let's be honest about this, Reid has the stink of loserdom on him.

Read T.A. Frank's piece in full for some analysis of the details of the debate. And read also Jon Ralston's post-debate take at the Las Vegas Sun. As usual, he gets it right:

Sharron Angle won The Big Debate.

Angle won because she looked relatively credible, appearing not to be the Wicked Witch of the West (Christine O’Donnell is the good witch of the Tea Party) and scoring many more rhetorical points. And she won because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked as if he could barely stay on a linear argument, abruptly switching gears and failing to effectively parry or thrust.

Whether the debate affects the outcome -- I believe very few Nevadans are undecided -- it also perfectly encapsulated the race: An aging senator who has mastered the inside political game but fundamentally does not seem to care about his public role (and is terrible at it) versus an ever-smiling political climber who can deliver message points but sometimes changes her message or denies a previous one even existed.

Ugh. I've never expected Reid to run away with the race, not with anti-incumbent populist rage all the rage at the moment, but, again, he should have no problem beating such an overwhelmingly unqualified and extremist opponent.

It's embarrassing, and, with Democrats fighting for their political lives, hardly what the party needs from one of its leaders.

For more, see Steve M. and Steve Benen.

The Angle of reflection

By Capt. Fogg

A significant part of the Republican "message" has been that our secular laws derive from a largely mythical "Judeo-Christian" system of values. Yes, the adage about strange bedfellows is true, but politics and religion, being in bed together, tend to spawn strange offspring and to dress them up as reason and decency.

Of course, it's true that a great number of our laws do reflect religious prohibitions, biases, and attitudes, and those laws often criminalize behavior that involves no harm to people or property and interferes with personal liberty, but those taboos seem to be shared by a great number of cultures which adhere to religions from Animism to Confucianism. There's little that's unique about our alleged Christian values and from the start, many of those values were at odds with our independence and our freedom. Yes, it's hard to think of a religion of any kind that has no rules of behavior but we're talking about Americans -- the people at the center of the universe who don't really think much about thinking or the necessity of reason.

So when we pass laws forbidding dancing on Friday, the observation or rejection of Christmas, the reading of certain books: when we make laws concerning who may live together, have sex together and in what way, we have illustrations of religious law intruding into secular life in America. Such things are slowly eroding and always changing, of course, but the prospect of a group that has always composed a small minority in the US: The Muslims, supporting certain religious rules within their own congregations and amongst their adherents seems to have all the bells in the national belfry ringing in discord.

Islamic religious law, says Sharon Angle, is "taking hold" in some American cities and that's a "militant terrorist situation." No, really. I suppose it's wildly different in a terrorist sort of way for Jews to forbid Pork and Lobster or cheeseburgers or to require prayer at certain times and even to mandate beards or distinctive clothing. I suppose it's not the same thing for Catholics to forbid divorce and require celibacy of certain people and distinctive clothing for the clergy. The special Mormon underwear? Prohibitions against alcohol and coffee? Is the Church of Latter Day Saints "taking over" Utah and the constitution taken to the shredder? No, there's no militant terrorist situation there. Is there really a chance that the constitution will be supplanted by the Amish Ordnung even if an area has a majority of that peaceful faith? So why are we afraid and what are we really afraid of? Why does Sharon Angle say:

"It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States"? 

Well, of course, we wouldn't pay any attention to such a person as she if she weren't outrageous, but if we were a nation that could notice that these religious rules are in no respect taking hold of municipal governments and in fact are optional personal choices in a nation that allows us to make such choices freely, perhaps Sharon Angle would be all alone in some little room raving at the walls and not on national TV farting out her fallacies, misrepresentations and hysterical lies -- and God help us, running for the U.S. Senate. Sure, there would be something fundamentally wrong, but more certainly: it isn't happening here. Religion, say the courts, gives no license to break the law whether that faith demands we strangle a wayward daughter or drag a gay man behind a pickup truck or poison our congregation with cyanide.

The key word here is "foreign." Although virtually all our religions are imported and many religious groups immigrated simply so that they could have communities with their own religious rules, Angle wants to reinforce the chauvinism of a certain kind of self-styled Christian who would be quite happy with a massively powerful government intent on substituting their own 'Christian' restrictions for our secular constitution. She is, most ironically, the best example of what she wants us to fear. Muslims and certain other people will always be "foreign" and most of us will never pause to reflect upon the horrible consequences that xenophobic, nationalistic bit of European bigotry had in the last century.

But we're not a nation of critical thinkers; at least not enough of us to give reason or even common decency a fighting chance. Bigotry, our real national religion, forbids it after all and we make demons out of people who don't want to participate or worst of all, don't want any religion forced on them.

Angle would like to pass on her contagious nightmare and indeed I know too many people who share it and who will refuse to be persuaded that even if we someday have an Ayatollah of Texas, he's not going to be able to use force to punish reprobates and infidels or have any more secular authority than an Archbishop or TV evangelist. They refuse to remember when Roman Catholics were a "foreign" religion to be feared for inquisitions and foreign rule over Americans. Somehow that "hopey-changey" thing did work our fairly well for them and for the many others who have had to contend with the Know-Nothing nativists and the Sharon Angles of their day.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Angle in the gutter

Guest post by R.K. Barry

Ed. note: R.K. Barry is the real name of T.W. Wilson, recent guest blogger here at The Reaction. He has decided that he no longer wishes to be pseudonymous. I support his decision, though I realize that decisions involving one's identity are deeply personal and that many bloggers, for reasons both personal and professional, prefer not to reveal who they really are. Clearly, many of my editors, co-bloggers, and contributors do not go by their real names, and I understand why, and I support their decisions as well.

**********

George H.W. Bush got to be President of the United States based in part on one of the worst race-baiting ads in American political history -- the infamous Willie Horton spot. Whether or not he has ever had the integrity to be ashamed of himself, we'll likely never know.

Would anyone be surprised to hear that Roger Ailes, current president of Fox News, was one of the masterminds behind the senior Bush's run for the White House?

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just released her own disgusting race-baiting ad. Gee, I wonder if she agonized at all over stooping so low?

Do these people have any idea how hateful they appear to others? And more to the point, if they did know, would they care?

The answer to all the questions above is "no," in case you thought this was some kind of test.

Check out Angle's ad.

(Ed. note: And, for more, see Think Progress, which finds that Angle and Louisiana Republican and fellow race-baiter David Vitter use the same photo of "illegal aliens" / "illegals" in their respective attack ads.