Sharron Angle Talks Gay Adoption, Church-State Relations, And Coked-Up Stimulus Monkeys
Nevada Republican Senate Candidate Sharron Angle is back in the news, and something tells me that Harry Reid is probably smiling about it.
First, a recently released questionnaire reveals Angles view on a wide variety of social issues:
Republican Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit and opposes laws allowing gays to adopt children, according to a questionnaire by the Nevada Senate hopeful that was obtained by The Associated Press.
Angle, who is trying to unseat Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, completed the four-page questionnaire for a conservative political action committee that has endorsed her candidacy.
The document provides a window into Angle’s social and moral views, which would place her among Congress’ most conservative members at a time of ongoing culture wars over gay rights, abortion and the boundaries between religion and government.
Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to “publicly acknowledge the Creator.”
(…)
Angle favors laws to restrict the production and sale of pornography, and believes that federal involvement in public schools should end. Also, she would oppose federal efforts to regulate private schools.
In other words, unlike the picture many have painted of the Tea Party, Sharron Angle is a radical social conservative. There’s nothing wrong with that, she’s entitled to her opinions, but she’s hardly the candidate of a movement devoted primary to fiscal conservatism.
That’s not to say that Sharron Angle doesn’t care about fiscal issues, though, because she’s right on top of the massive problem of government spending on drug addicted primates:
A press release from Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle today goes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for voting in favor of the economic stimulus package. The release features the headline: “Harry Reid’s Plan to Save the Nevada Economy: Coked-up Stimulus Monkeys.”
The release cites a Republican Senate report that details some of the more attention-grabbing line-items in the stimulus bill:
Harry Reid says ‘no one can do more’ for Nevada. We had no idea Harry’s plan of ‘more’ meant spending millions on coked-up monkeys and exotic ants while our state is ravaged by the worst foreclosure rate and highest unemployment rate in the nation,” said Jerry Stacy, spokesman for U.S. Senatorial [candidate] Sharron Angle.
As an ABC News report indicates, the total spending on the “coked-up monkeys” is $ 71,623. Wasteful ? When it comes to scientific research it’s hard to say. Scientists will tell you that no avenue of research is a waste of time because you’ll never know where it leads. Of course that doesn’t mean it should be funded with taxpayer dollars, but this isn’t exactly a budget buster.
Nonetheless, something tells me that “coked-up stimulus monkeys” could become the Demon Sheep of the General Election campaign.
But is she not being heavily supported by the tea party?
Well there is the rub, since the “tea party” is pretty much just a name a wide swath of angry voters give themselves, there is no “tea party” platform as such. I mean the “tea party” is all about what those who identify as such don’t want. until they, as a group figure out what they do want then the “tea party” is pretty much whatever anyone want’s it to be, isn’t that true?
I know they want to reduce the deficit but they seem to be in favor of tax cuts (except of course the 350 billion or so of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill) which will increase the deficit. They also want lower government spending but have failed to rally around any specific proposals (which is smart because as soon as you mention what you want to cut you lose the support of those who would be effected by it).
My take is that if there were a group who could successfully put forward a bill of things that the “tea party” wanted to cut, then they would lose as much as 50% of there support (unless of course their spending cuts didn’t amount to anything). I’ve seen lots of senors in those groups, I presume that SS and medicaid are off the table as well as defense).
As for Ms Angel, of course she is supported by the “tea party”, they are not supporting Reid.
I, for one, welcome …
/nevermind
She answered a questionnaire completely but somehow by answering questions unrelated to fiscal policy that makes her “hardly the candidate of a movement devoted primary to fiscal conservatism”? I guess she should only speak of fiscal issues then.
Those answers she gave are within mainstream American thought. The $70,000 and change for monkey research? Most people would see it as wasteful and unnecessary especially when we are making our grand kids pay for it.
You guys go ahead and keep picking at her. She’s closer to most of us than Harry Reid will ever be.
“The $70,000 and change for monkey research? Most people would see it as wasteful and unnecessary especially when we are making our grand kids pay for it.”
You must be joking, right? Please tell me you are joking.
Understanding the biochemistry of addiction is wasteful? 70 thousand dollars for a scientific research grant is objectionable?
What planet do you live on, buddy? How the hell do you think that biomedical research proceeds in this country. How do you imagine it is paid for? Scientific research is one of the last areas where America still dominates the rest of the world, and studies like the ones mentioned here are utterly routine. There are thousands of similar projects that are funded every year, that make up the substance and foundation of our increased scientific knowledge, and, down the road, to our continued prosperity, All those projects are susceptible to cynical mischaracterizations by politicos who assume, or hope, that the American people are profoundly ignorant, or downright stupid.
“She’s closer to most of us than Harry Reid will ever be.”
Perhaps. It surely depends on what you mean by “us”. I’m guessing that you have a very small “us”.
“You guys go ahead and keep picking at her. She’s closer to most of us than Harry Reid will ever be.”
Words like this have also been used to defend Sarah Palin…not much of a politician but a hell of a celebrity…maybe Angle can travel down that same road after she loses to Reid in November…
Steve Plunk — You keep saying that Angle’s views are “close to the mainstream” or “close to us.” That may be true, but only if you define “mainstream” as Alabama and “us” as hard right religious fundamentalists. Most of “us” in the non-Southern USA don’t want school teachers preaching to children, don’t want to criminalize homosexuality, don’t want preachers electioneering from tax-free pulpits, don’t want anything to do with what seems to the real mainstream to be insanity.
Tano: You’re probably the same kind of nut that believes in “volcano monitoring”. Well, there are 800 million of us out here who have had enough of your fancy, un-Bibley ways and we’re coming out to vote! Well, not the womenfolk, they have to stay home, but every man outside of New York and San Francisco! Believe me!
If that $70,000 was the only money being spent on research I would certainly defend it but it’s just one drop in the bucket of research funds being doled out across the country every day. Now maybe it’s a good research project and maybe it’s not but saying we need to smarter with money we are borrowing from future generations doesn’t make some one anti-science. Or we can just keep borrowing and funding every project that submits an application.
So the original post attempts to paint her as a kook, completely at odds with most American values. That’s just wrong. Why shouldn’t ministers be allowed to endorse candidates who espouse values in line with their own beliefs? It seems most Americans do not endorse gay adoption and don’t like the idea of gays being a minority protected by civil rights legislation. Now I disagree with her about pornography controls but a good part of the country agrees. As for federal involvement in public schools there are even some school administrators who see the bad outweighing the good.
Despite reid’s straw man neither Angle or myself would keep women in kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Think for minute, she’s a woman running the Senate. wr’s contention she would “criminalize homosexuality” is a made up fantasy meant to demonize her. Tano’s argument might carry some weight but science has frittered away our trust with bogus research projects that cost a fortune so it’s hard to tell if this one is legitimate or not.
You may not like the fact most Americans are realizing we are broke and progressive ideas have brought us here. A little movement toward the right would serve us all well.
This “coked-up monkeys” attack is crap. For one thing, it’s deceptive and insulting, because it quite likely is a reasonable study if you look beyond the headline; for another, it turns out it’s small potatoes anyway. They think it’s a gotcha: “Ha ha, he funded coke for monkeys, stupid liberal!” I don’t appreciate being patronized like that (not that I’m in NV).
Amusing that Steve thinks our current economic straits are all caused by progressive ideas. The giant lurch to the right in the Bush years surely had nothing to do with it.
And please stop with the generalities like “most Americans”. It’s typical of wingnuts to think there’s some mass of “real Americans” that they speak for, but you have no idea.
Plunk — Why not try listening to what she actually says, instead of what you wish a candidate might have said? She didn’t say this might be good research, but there’s bad research funded with government money and we should stop funding bad research. She — well, her spokesman — was whining about the “millions” spent on “coked-up monkeys.”
As for why ministers can’t endorse candidates… they can. They can shout it from their rooftops and their pulpits. The only thing they can’t do is endorse candidates while maintaing tax-exempt status for their “church.” Because churches are exempt from paying taxes on the grounds that they are houses of worship, not parts of political campaigns.
@Mataconis
In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to “publicly acknowledge the Creator.”
In other words, unlike the picture many have painted of the Tea Party, Sharron Angle is a radical [emphasis added] social conservative.
It is the law of the land that teachers and students have the freedom to talk openly about religion – anywhere. Including schools. As an attorney, you should know this.
I find it interesting that you label this position by Angle radical based not upon whether or not it is in accordance with law, but rather on some subjective assessment on your part. But yet you strongly infer that her position reveals some departure from “normal.” This seems more than a bit disingenuous on your part
@Mataconis
Republican Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit
You mean, like black clergy did extensively for Obama. This was no secret and again, your double-standard for what constitutes a “radical” position makes your observations less and less convincing.
So Juneau — When elementary school teachers proselytize for Islam, you’ll be okay with that? You’ll say “sure, my tax dollars are paying for this education, but it’s legal for any teacher to spend the school day preaching his or her religion?” Or how about atheist? Should they be allowed to teach public school kids that there is no god?
@wr
When elementary school teachers proselytize for Islam, you’ll be okay with that?
Get a clue, joker. Your answer to any issue, as far as I can see, is to twist the argument to a narrow interpretation that you can attack, and then act like you’re actually addressing the point. You think this is effective, but all you are really doing is showing your bias.
The issue is students and teachers having the ability to speak openly of religion in schools, dummkopf. The US SC has already ruled and affirmed that they do. To call this position “radical” is nothing but sheer deception.
You issue about proselytizing is extremely interesting, since this is already taking place in some schools. In California for example, elementary school children have done unit studies on the Muslim religion, where they get to learn about the pillars, or tenets, of the Islamic faith, who Muhammed was and why he is important to Muslims, etc. So, please don’t speak of your quivering fear of Christianity being openly spoken of in schools.
Or, let me guess, somehow the fact that it is Christianity makes it different?
School children should learn about Christianity. And Judaism and Islam.
They should be taught by their schools that one of these is Truth. They should not be taught that Jesus rode dinosaurs, or whatever nonsense fundies like Angle want them to learn.