Ad

Facts

BROWN: Sharron Angle says she wants to end Social Security, but we depend on that money.

On Screen: Hannah Brown

On Screen: End Social Security / KSNV, 5/19/10

FACT: ANGLE WANTS TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, BELIEVES ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS VIOLATE THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

Angle: “We Need To Phase Medicare And Social Security Out.” During a May 2010 debate on Face to Face, Sharron Angle said, “We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized.” She later added, “Going forward we need to phase it out, give people an opportunity to either opt into the old system or go for a new system where they have their own healthcare savings account or they have their own retirement savings account which is portable and goes with them from job to job and for those who are entering the workforce right now they come on to the new system so it’s a phased-in system so it’s something [inaudible] privatize.” [Face to Face Debate, 5/19/10]

Angle Said Social Security Is “Difficult To Justify” And Likened It To Welfare. In a May interview with KNPR, Angle said, “Well, it’s very difficult, Lynn, to justify Social Security. As you know F.D.R. put it in as an insurance policy for those who were needy. My grandfather would not even take his Social Security check because he said he was not up for welfare, he had planned for his retirement, and he wouldn’t take it. But, since then we have gotten into this whole mindset that it’s an entitlement.” [KNPR, State of Nevada, 5/19/10 (emphasis added)]

Angle Believes “Entitlement Programs … Make Government Our God” And That “We Have Become A Country Entrenched In Idolatry.” During an April 2010 interview with TruNews radio, Angle said, “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.” [TruNews, 4/21/10]

Even Sherm Frederick Knew Angle Was Saying Social Security Violates The First Commandment, And Even He Disagreed. In an August 2010 blog post, Review-Journal Publisher Sherm Frederick wrote, “U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle does it again. She grants an interview to a Christian radio station and spouts some religious stuff that not only makes her look politically bad, it gives people of faith -- like, say, our Founding Fathers -- a black eye … I'm not saying that she doesn't have a point about things being out of whack when it comes to the balance between personal responsibility and the role of government. And, yes, humans can put anything before God, thus ignoring the First Commandment. But our government was created by men who believed in God. And they crafted the government to provide a common protection. That wasn't idolatry. Expansion of that common protection to include things like Social Security, or even national health care (though I think it is a bad idea) is not necessarily idolatry.” [Review-Journal, Sherm Frederick Blog, 8/5/10]

Angle Called Social Security “A Broken System Without Much To Recommend It.” In August 2010 the Associated Press reported Angle, “previously said she didn't trust big government to manage what she called ‘a broken system without much to recommend it,’ and she repeatedly has said she supports phasing out Social Security over time.” [Associated Press, 8/14/10]

Angle In 1993: “STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.” In a 1993 letter to Senator Reid, Angle wrote, “The answer to this mess is clear. STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. MAKE THE DIFFICULT CHOICES THAT WILL KEEP OUR COUNTRY STRONG. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO!” [Review-Journal, John L. Smith Column, 8/18/10 (emphasis in original)]

Review-Journal’s John L. Smith On Angle’s Letter: “That's The Angle I Know. Her Recent Soft-Lens Campaign Style Notwithstanding, I Suspect Sharron Angle Is The Same As She Ever Was.” In an August 2010 column, John L. Smith wrote, “Angle let Reid have it with both barrels. She also bluntly revealed her belief that the only way to save America was to end ‘social and entitlement programs.’ As a Senate candidate this year, Angle and her campaign mechanics have worked hard to soften her rhetoric about ‘eliminating’ Social Security in favor of ‘privatizing’ and ‘personalizing’ individual accounts. She's also suffered self-inflicted wounds on federal unemployment insurance extensions and other ‘entitlement’ programs … Ending Social Security and other entitlement programs? … That's the Angle I know. Her recent soft-lens campaign style notwithstanding, I suspect Sharron Angle is the same as she ever was.” [Review-Journal, John L. Smith Column, 8/18/10 (emphasis added)]

Angle: “The Idea Of Privatizing And Getting Out Of Medicare And Social Security Is Not Up For Grabs.” In June 2010, Talking Points Memo reported, “In an interview from three weeks before the Nevada Republican primary, Sharron Angle made it clear that getting rid of Medicare and Social Security is a non-negotiable issue for her … Going on in the interview, Angle talks about how as a Senator she would work with other legislators to formulate a proper solution for her idea, haggling over the details and implementation of privatization without giving up on the main idea itself: ‘The idea of privatizing and getting out of Medicare and Social Security is not up for grabs.’” [Talking Points Memo, 6/14/10]

Angle: “I’m Not Sure Just Where In The Constitution The Federal Government Is Even Supposed To Be Involved In Our Medicare.” During a September 2009 campaign event, Sharron Angle said, “We need to send people back there who are willing to look at what’s wrong because we know that Medicare Part D might have been a good idea when it started out, but once it goes through the legislative process it becomes compromised and pretty soon it doesn’t work. And I’m not sure just where in the Constitution the federal government is even supposed to be involved in our Medicare. You know, these are things that could be done on the state level much better.” [Angle Campaign Event, 9/1/09 (emphasis added)]

Angle On Medicare: “We Need To Phase It Out.” In October 2009, the Review-Journal reported, “As for Medicare, she (Angle) said the entitlement program popular with seniors will eventually grow too costly to maintain… ‘We need to phase it out,’ she said.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/21/09]

LARSON: She doesn’t think insurance companies should have to cover the colon cancer tests that saved my life.

On Screen: No Coverage for cancer tests / SB 183, 5/16/03

On Screen: Holly Larson, Cancer Survivor

FACT: ANGLE WAS ONE OF JUST TWO VOTES IN THE ASSEMBLY TO VOTE AGAINST REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COVER COLON CANCER SCREENINGS

Angle Voted Against Requiring Coverage Of Colorectal Cancer Screenings. Angle in 2003 was one of only two votes in the Assembly against SB 183, which required health insurance companies to cover screenings for colorectal cancer, if they provide treatment for colorectal cancer. [SB 183, 5/16/03]

Even The American Cancer Society’s Lobbyist Testified Her Insurance Did Not Cover Colonoscopies. While urging members of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee to pass SB 183, American Cancer Society Lobbyist Buffy Gail Martin disclosed, “Just as a side note, I am an employee of the American Cancer Society.  However, my medical insurance company operating in the state of Nevada does not cover colonoscopies.” [Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee Minutes, 4/25/03 (emphasis added)]

FACT: ANGLE BRAGS ABOUT INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO REPEAL ALL STATE COVERAGE MANDATES

Angle Touted Bill To Remove Coverage Mandates. During an April 2010 debate, Angle said, “If you go to my website you will see my record. As your state legislator I introduced three bills. One would have taken off all of the mandates on insurance, and that’s one of the solutions that we have to have a Senator that will go and introduce something like that that says we don’t have mandated coverages on insurance.” [Anger is Brewing Senate Debate, 4/23/10]

Angle Touted Legislation That Would Have “Created A Basic Health Insurance Policy” Without Coverage Mandates On Her Primary Campaign Website. According to Angle’s pre-primary website, “Assemblywoman, Sharron Angle introduced affordable insurance legislation that removed costly mandates and created a basic health insurance policy, with the ability to add those benefits that were specific to each person.” [Angle Campaign Website, 6/8/10, via TheRealSharrnAngle.com]

FACT: ANGLE EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THE CHARGE THAT SHE OPPOSES INSURANCE COVERAGE MANDATES FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND COLON CANCER SCREENINGS BY BRAGGING ABOUT HER BILL TO REPEAL COVERAGE MANDATES

Asked About Attacks On Her Record And Rhetoric Regarding Health Care Coverage Mandates Angle Bragged About Trying To Repeal Coverage Mandates And Attacked Reid For Supporting Coverage Mandates.” During a July 2010 interview with the Review-Journal, Angle addressed attacks on her record and rhetoric on the campaign trail:

BOARD MEMBER: Let’s ask you some questions then. The latest mailer that Harry Reid has sent out is one that says you voted against requiring insurance companies to pay for mammograms and colonoscopies. So tell us your rationale for that.

ANGLE: Remember one of the things that we said would always be a good health care cost reform is to eliminate mandated coverages and allow people to participate in a just a basic plan and add the coverages they needed and take on those costs so that they knew what they were actually taking on. Those things that Harry Reid is complaining about are mandated coverages. And we have so many now in this state of Nevada that many insurers won’t even come in this state because they can’t.

BOARD MEMBER: How many are there?

ANGLE: How many insurers are there?

BOARD MEMBER: Mandates.

ANGLE: Mandates, I’m not even sure. When I left there were 21. And I don’t know how much beyond that. I’ve heard bigger numbers, but that was one of the things that I even had a bill to remove those mandates here in the state because every time they put a mandate on, somebody can’t afford it, somebody drops off those affordable insurance rolls and now they are uninsured. So if Harry Reid is really genuine and wants people to be insured, he needs to give them the opportunity to afford insurance and one of those things is to take off those mandated coverages, not put on more.  [Angle Interview with the Review-Journal Editorial Board, 7/25/10 (emphasis added)]

FACT: ANGLE WANTS TO REMOVE ALL COVERAGE MANDATES – BOTH IN NEVADA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Angle: The Answer To Health Care “Is Take Off The Mandates For Coverage In The State Of Nevada And All Over The United States.” During an August 2009 campaign appearance, Angle discussed her ideas on health care. She said, “The first one is let us go outside state lines and get a competitive insurance company. The second one is take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States. But here you know what I’m talking about. You’re paying for things that you don’t even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything they want to throw at us now is covered under ‘autism.’ So that’s a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave? I’m not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. Those are the kinds of things we want to get rid of.” [Angle Campaign Event, 8/29/09]

Angle: “If You Don’t Have 23 Mandates That Are In The State Of Nevada That Say You Have To Have This And This Coverage, You Can Then Cut Your Costs On The Coverage.” During a September 2009 appearance on Face to Face, Angle explained her answer on health care:

RALSTON: What’s the answer then; tell me what the answer is?

ANGLE: I’m saying that our free market system is the answer. We have a lot of things that we can do. One of them is just letting people go across state lines to make choices on their interests—

RALSTON: Insurances across state lines…

ANGLE: yeah, that’s right…Another one is to cut down on all of the government mandates that are on healthcare. If you don’t have 23 mandates that are in the state of Nevada that say you have to have this and this coverage, you can then cut your costs on the coverage.

RALSTON: Well let’s jus take that just for instance, because that’s a Conservative principle that I’ve heard you and other Conservatives say, let’s not have so many mandates. But some of those things people would argue the counter. If we don’t force insurance companies to cover certain things whether it’s treatments for cervical cancer or something like that, then you’re hurting healthcare by not doing that on the other end. Don’t just think that it’s government’s responsibility to make sure that insurance companies cover certain things.

ANGLE: No, I don’t think so. I think that supply and demand…the whole point of our country and the freedom of that system. If we want those coverages, we’ll go out and buy those coverages and they then will supply those coverages. Those kinds of things, you know we are going to shop around for the insurance company that is going to supply the thing that we need. Those are the kind of coverages that I want. You know, it works the same way for car insurance, when we go out we get a basic policy, and then if we want collision or if we want comprehensive then we go out and we buy that too, and we find the lowest price car insurance to provide the kind of things that we need. And that’s what will happen on the free market scale. [Face to Face, 9/23/09]

Jon Ralston: “Angle: Insurance Mandates Are Product Of Government Bowing To ‘Politically Correct Special Interest.’” In September 2010, Jon Ralston reported, “Such as Big Autism or Big Colonoscopies or Big Pregnant Women, perhaps? That last one may be politically incorrect, but it is political correctness Angle cited last month in a speech to the Association of Health Underwriters on August 10 in explaining her opposition to mandates on insurance companies … Here's a transcription of what Angle said … ‘We know that if we could have that affordability across state lines, you’re not, you’re not afraid of competition I know you’re not, you would in fact invite it. I have friends in other states that say you know I’d like to come to Nevada, but you have problems there in Nevada. And one of the problems is unfunded, well they are unfunded, but these mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage for things that people don’t even really need! And what we need to do is get rid of those mandates, let you provide a comprehensive coverage that takes care of what people need and allows them to buy them the things that they have to have, not things that are mandated by the government. A similar policy, as the things that people write for car insurance, and life insurance, you know you write something that fits the need of a person rather than fitting what the government has done for some politically correct special interest and that’s how we got those mandates.’” [Ralston’s Flash, 9/27/10 (audio at link)]

Angle Doubled Down On Her Opposition To Requiring Insurance Companies To Cover Anything They Don’t Want To Cover. During the October 14 Senate debate, Angle was asked about her stance on requiring insurance companies to cover “anything at all”:

FOX: Okay.  Uh, we'll go to the next question.  It's still on healthcare reform and actually Senator Reid kind of paraphrased my question, but I'll rephrase it.  Uh, you've said, on various occasions, and in fact voted in the state assembly, to do away with mandated coverage of mammograms. You've come out in favor of eliminating coverage for autism and maternity leave. Is there anything that you think the insurance companies should be forced to cover?

ANGLE: America is a country of choices. Not forcing people to buy things they don't need. What we want is a basic policy where we can add the coverages that we need. I taught autistic children. I know that this is a real biomedical disorder. And it needs to have its own insurance code so that families can get the right treatment and also be covered. But the insurance mandate that we passed in this state only cares for 25% of the one out of every 110 children that have autism. We need to stop making Band-Aid uh applications and look at real solutions when we talk about healthcare, and really, forcing someone to buy something that they don't need is not the way to solve a problem.

FOX: Okay, let me rephrase that question again. Is there anything at all that you think the insurance companies should be mandated to cover? Anything?

ANGLE: Anything at all?

FOX: Yes.

ANGLE: I, I think that what we, what we have here is a choice between the free market and Americanism. America is about choices, and we need to allow people to have those choices. The free market will weed out those companies that uh don't offer as many choices, and don't have a cost effective system. Let the people decide where they want to buy their insurance. You don't have to force them to buy anything, and you don't have to force anyone to offer a product that no one wants.

FOX: Okay, so no insurance mandates? [Nevada Senate Debate, 10/14/10]

VANDE VOORT: Sharron Angle voted against background checks for people who work with kids.

On Screen: Richard Vande Voort, Family Therapist

On Screen: Against background checks / AB 239, 4/15/99

FACT: ANGLE VOTED AGAINST SETTING UP A SPECIAL FUND TO HELP NON-PROFITS PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS TO MAKE SURE VOLUNTEERS WORKING WITH KIDS AREN’T SEX OFFENDERS

Angle Voted Against Special Fund To Help Non-Profits Conduct Criminal Background Checks On Volunteers Working With Kids. In 1999, Angle was one of only two votes in the Assembly opposing AB 239, which gave nonprofit agencies access to a special fund that helped underwrite the costs of background checks on volunteers to determine whether they had committed sexual offenses. AB 239 passed the Assembly on a 40-2 vote. [AB 239, 4/15/99; Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

Girl Scouts And Boy Scouts Of America Supported The Bill. According to Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, both the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts were in favor of AB 239. Vicki N. Wright, Executive Director for the Sierra Nevada Girl Scout Council, testified that “the cost of conducting background checks on their current 4,000 volunteers was financially prohibitive. She opined A.B. 239 would address that concern, would add an extra level of scrutiny to their screening process, and would make children safer.” [Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

During A Hearing On The Bill, Angle “Expressed Concern With The Possible Invasion Of Privacy And Liability Issues Included In The Bill.” During a March discussion of AB 239 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, Angle “expressed concern with the possible invasion of privacy and liability issues included in the bill. She stated voluntary programs always stepped up to become mandatory and she did not want to see the state get involved with things of a first amendment nature.” [AB 239, 4/15/99; Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

ASKED ABOUT THE BILL IN 2010, ANGLE’S RIDICULOUS DEFENSE WAS THAT SHE “RAISED QUESTIONS … REGARDING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN REGARDS TO PERSONAL PRIVACY AND COSTS.” In August the Review-Journal reported that Nevada law enforcement officials had endorsed Reid and attacked Angle’s extreme and dangerous record. According to the report, “What about Angle’s votes in the Assembly that Reid said demonstrated she doesn’t support law enforcement? ‘Sharron agrees with the spirit of those bills and the need for law enforcement to have the proper tools,’ Agen said. ‘However she had concerns with the execution. At the time, Sharron raised questions in committee regarding the unintended consequences in regards to personal privacy and costs.’” [Review-Journal, Political Eye Blog, 8/30/10]

NEVADA LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL DENOUNCED ANGLE’S EXTREME AND DANGEROUS VOTE

Axel James (Police Officers Research Association of Nevada): “One thing is for sure, Sharron Angle’s record on the issues important to law enforcement are just too extreme and dangerous. For example, she was one of only two votes against a special fund to help non-profits conduct criminal background checks on volunteers that are working with kids. Are you kidding me? I am a parent of five year-old triplets. Why in the world would anyone vote against a bill that ensures sex offenders are not working with our children? This bill was supported by the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts of America, but not with Sharron Angle. It’s clear Sharron Angle’s vision of Nevada and in Nevada is too extreme and too dangerous. And, when you compare that record to Senator Harry Reid, the choice couldn’t be clearer. And that’s why PORAN is supporting and endorsing Harry Reid this election.” [Reid Campaign Event, 8/30/10]

LAND: She says if you’ve been raped, you should be forced to have the baby. She calls it making lemonade out of lemons.

On Screen: Leah Land

On Screen: Force rape victims to have the baby / KXNT, 6/30/10

FACT: ANGLE OPPOSES ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST, WOULD VOTE TO FORCE A TEENAGE RAPE VICTIM TO CARRY THE FETUS TO TERM

Government Is Not God: “Would You Vote To Prohibit Abortion In All Cases?” Angle: “Yes.” [Government Is Not God Candidate Questionnaire (Question #4), via Ralston’s Flash, 8/5/10]

Angle Doesn’t Believe In Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest, Says “God Has A Plan And A Purpose For Each One Of Our Lives.” During a January interview with talk show host Bill Manders, Angle was asked to discuss her views on abortion:

MANDERS: I think the abortion issue, though…I want to talk to you a little about this. I think it’s become…I too am pro-life, but I’m also pro-choice -- do you understand what I say when I mean that?

ANGLE: Well I’m pro responsible choice. You know there’s choice to abstain, choice to do contraception. There’s all kind of good choices.

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things. [KOH, 1/25/10, via Huffington Post, 6/29/10]

Angle On Teenage Rape Victims Who Become Pregnant: Said, “I Think That Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right” Talked About Turning “A Lemon Situation Into Lemonade.” During a June 2010 interview with Alan Stock, Angle discussed her opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest:

STOCK: Let me bring up one other topic that I rarely talk about here, because it's one of those topics that's a lose-lose, but we've got to talk about it because it was brought up in your TV interview and that has to do with the issue of abortion, and whether or not abortion should be available in the case of rape or incest. The question to you at the time by the interviewer was that do you want the government to go and tell a 13 year-old child who has been raped by her father that she has to have that baby. And of course you responded 'I didn't say that I always say that I value life.' Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?

ANGLE: Well right now our law permits that. My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

STOCK: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

ANGLE: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life. [KXNT, 6/30/10, via Huffington Post, 7/8/10]

Jane Ann Morrison: It’s No Gaffe When She Says She Opposes Abortion In Every Instance… She Means It.” In a July 5 column, Jane Ann Morrison wrote, “Sharron Angle's statements aren't so much gaffes as they make one wonder: Does she really mean that? Her ‘take out Harry Reid’ stance sounded pretty fierce and has been toned down. She's trying to soften some of her seemingly unwavering positions about Social Security and Medicare, but those aren't gaffes as much as an effort to reach the middle ground by wavering. It's no gaffe when she says she opposes abortion in every instance, even in cases of rape and incest. She means it.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 7/5/10]

Associated Press: Angle Opposes Abortion In All Circumstances. In June 2010, the Associated Press reported, “Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.” [Associated Press, 6/14/2010]

Review-Journal: Angle “Took Heat For Saying She Doesn’t Believe In Abortion In Any Case, Including Rape And Incest.” In August 2010, the Review-Journal reported, “A devout Southern Baptist, Angle has said she felt a ‘calling from God’ to run for the Senate, a comment opponents mocked. She also took heat for saying she doesn't believe in abortion in any case, including rape and incest, because ‘God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives.’” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 8/8/2010]

BUNKER: As a Republican, I can’t see voting for Sharron Angle.

On Screen: Morgan Bunker

On Screen: Sharron Angle

On Screen: Not just extreme, dangerous.

REID: I’m Harry Reid, and I approve this message.

On Screen: APPROVED BY HARRY REID. PAID FOR BY FRIENDS FOR HARRY REID.

LAS VEGAS SUN: “Prominent Republicans Coming Out In Support Of Harry Reid.” “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s re-election campaign has received several endorsements, but perhaps the most unusual one has been from an upstart band of his regular rivals, who have come together to support him under a banner that screams “swing vote”: Republicans for Reid. The GOP group, formed well in advance of the midterm elections last year, has been slowly adding to its ranks ever since. For the most part, the 400-plus Republicans making up the list are prominent business owners, politicians, and political consultants with deep GOP ties — such as their leader, Sig Rogich. Many have lent their names to the Reid campaign because they have long histories with him; many others have simply determined that Reid’s policies and clout would better serve the state than Sharron Angle’s. But this is far from a band of boosters. Insofar as organized efforts go, Reid’s Republicans are a club without a clubhouse, a fraternity with no sacred oaths or traditions, a decentralized machine where all one must do to become part of the apparatus is sign on the dotted line. Republicans for Reid is, in effect, a cross-section of the party’s disenchanted.” [Las Vegas Sun, 10/24/10]

FACT: EVEN ANGLE’S HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER, HER HOMETOWN MAYOR AND EVEN HER OWN STATE SENATOR SAY IT’S IN NEVADA’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN REID TO THE SENATE

Reno Gazette-Journal: “Replacing Sen. Reid With Angle Would Be A Disaster For Nevada.” In October 2010, the Reno Gazette-Journal endorsed Reid, saying, “Reid, seeking his fifth term in the Senate, is far from perfect, but he remains an effective advocate for Nevada’s interests in the nation’s capital, a skillful politician who has used his position to make a difference in his home state and help the nation work its way out of some very difficult times. He should be re-elected.” [Gazette-Journal, Editorial, 10/17/10]

Reno Gazatte-Journal: “The next few years will be difficult ones for Nevadans. The possibility that the state will have not one but two ineffective senators representing it in Washington, D.C., is frightening. Harry Reid may not be every Nevadan’s cup of tea, and his career clearly is winding down, but he has been very good for this state. He should be elected to another term.” [Gazette-Journal, Editorial, 10/17/10]

State Senate Republican Leader Bill Raggio: “Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she ‘can’t do much harm as a junior back bencher’! Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?, I ask. I am a lifelong Republican and unlike Ms. Angle, I have never changed parties … Other than my inability to accept her extreme and often even radical ideas and positions, if there was any concern about my natural preference to endorse a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, it was removed altogether when Angle, in a secretly taped conversation, expressed her true feelings by slamming and disavowing the Republican Party saying it had ‘lost its standards and principles.’ For all these reasons, I am unable to support Sharron Angle. We need someone in the U.S. Senate who can be effective, work with others, and best represent the interests of our State.” [Ralston’s Flash, 10/7/10]

Sparks Daily Tribune: “While change for change’s sake can be good, now is not the time for Nevada to gamble on an inexperienced freshman senator with some different ideas.” [Sparks Daily Tribune, Editorial, 10/16/10]

Reno Mayor Bob Cashell (R): With The Wild Ideas She Has Going Back To Washington, Our State Will Suffer And We Would Never Get Anything Done.” In June 2010, Talking Points Memo reported, “Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, who had previously supported Sue Lowden in the GOP primary -- and now says he’s supporting Harry Reid. ‘I think Sharron Angle is just too far to the right for me,’ Cashell said on Wednesday, in an interview with the local NBC affiliate. ‘She’s an ultra-right winger. I can’t support her. I don’t support her.’ Cashell elaborated: ‘Oh she’s wild. She’s wild. I mean, with the wild ideas she has going back to Washington, our state will suffer and we would never get anything done. And so I’m supporting Harry Reid, and I will go all the way for Harry Reid.’” [Talking Points Memo, 6/11/10 (emphasis added); KRNV (Video), 6/9/10]

Republican State Senator Dean Rhoads: “We Can Support Senator Reid And Keep Rural Nevada’s Key Industries Humming, Or We Can Choose Someone Whose Out-Of-Touch Positions And Lack Of Seniority Are Sure To Put Nevada’s Interests On The Sidelines.” In October 2010, the Elko Daily Free Press reported, “State Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, announced in a letter he is backing Sen. Harry Reid … Rhoads wrote that rural Nevada depends on two legislative pillars, the Taylor Grazing Act and the 1872 Mining Law. ‘While many Democrats would like to end grazing on public lands and slap a huge royalty on hard rock mining, Harry Reid is not one of them,’ Rhoads wrote. ‘As Majority Leader of the United States Senate he puts an end to proposals like these before they ever catch flight.’ The longtime state senator wrote that the choice on Nov. 2 is clear: ‘We can support Senator Reid and keep rural Nevada’s key industries humming, or we can choose someone whose out-of-touch positions and lack of seniority are sure to put Nevada’s interests on the sidelines.’ Rhoads also wrote that the U.S. Senate will remain under control of Democrats after the election, and that rural Nevada will be worse off if Reid is voted out and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., becomes majority leader.” [Elko Daily Free Press, 10/21/10]

Ad

Facts

BROWN: Sharron Angle says she wants to end Social Security, but we depend on that money.

On Screen: Hannah Brown

On Screen: End Social Security / KSNV, 5/19/10

FACT: ANGLE WANTS TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, BELIEVES ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS VIOLATE THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

Angle: “We Need To Phase Medicare And Social Security Out.” During a May 2010 debate on Face to Face, Sharron Angle said, “We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized.” She later added, “Going forward we need to phase it out, give people an opportunity to either opt into the old system or go for a new system where they have their own healthcare savings account or they have their own retirement savings account which is portable and goes with them from job to job and for those who are entering the workforce right now they come on to the new system so it’s a phased-in system so it’s something [inaudible] privatize.” [Face to Face Debate, 5/19/10]

Angle Said Social Security Is “Difficult To Justify” And Likened It To Welfare. In a May interview with KNPR, Angle said, “Well, it’s very difficult, Lynn, to justify Social Security. As you know F.D.R. put it in as an insurance policy for those who were needy. My grandfather would not even take his Social Security check because he said he was not up for welfare, he had planned for his retirement, and he wouldn’t take it. But, since then we have gotten into this whole mindset that it’s an entitlement.” [KNPR, State of Nevada, 5/19/10 (emphasis added)]

Angle Believes “Entitlement Programs … Make Government Our God” And That “We Have Become A Country Entrenched In Idolatry.” During an April 2010 interview with TruNews radio, Angle said, “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.” [TruNews, 4/21/10]

Even Sherm Frederick Knew Angle Was Saying Social Security Violates The First Commandment, And Even He Disagreed. In an August 2010 blog post, Review-Journal Publisher Sherm Frederick wrote, “U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle does it again. She grants an interview to a Christian radio station and spouts some religious stuff that not only makes her look politically bad, it gives people of faith -- like, say, our Founding Fathers -- a black eye … I'm not saying that she doesn't have a point about things being out of whack when it comes to the balance between personal responsibility and the role of government. And, yes, humans can put anything before God, thus ignoring the First Commandment. But our government was created by men who believed in God. And they crafted the government to provide a common protection. That wasn't idolatry. Expansion of that common protection to include things like Social Security, or even national health care (though I think it is a bad idea) is not necessarily idolatry.” [Review-Journal, Sherm Frederick Blog, 8/5/10]

Angle Called Social Security “A Broken System Without Much To Recommend It.” In August 2010 the Associated Press reported Angle, “previously said she didn't trust big government to manage what she called ‘a broken system without much to recommend it,’ and she repeatedly has said she supports phasing out Social Security over time.” [Associated Press, 8/14/10]

Angle In 1993: “STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.” In a 1993 letter to Senator Reid, Angle wrote, “The answer to this mess is clear. STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. MAKE THE DIFFICULT CHOICES THAT WILL KEEP OUR COUNTRY STRONG. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO!” [Review-Journal, John L. Smith Column, 8/18/10 (emphasis in original)]

Review-Journal’s John L. Smith On Angle’s Letter: “That's The Angle I Know. Her Recent Soft-Lens Campaign Style Notwithstanding, I Suspect Sharron Angle Is The Same As She Ever Was.” In an August 2010 column, John L. Smith wrote, “Angle let Reid have it with both barrels. She also bluntly revealed her belief that the only way to save America was to end ‘social and entitlement programs.’ As a Senate candidate this year, Angle and her campaign mechanics have worked hard to soften her rhetoric about ‘eliminating’ Social Security in favor of ‘privatizing’ and ‘personalizing’ individual accounts. She's also suffered self-inflicted wounds on federal unemployment insurance extensions and other ‘entitlement’ programs … Ending Social Security and other entitlement programs? … That's the Angle I know. Her recent soft-lens campaign style notwithstanding, I suspect Sharron Angle is the same as she ever was.” [Review-Journal, John L. Smith Column, 8/18/10 (emphasis added)]

Angle: “The Idea Of Privatizing And Getting Out Of Medicare And Social Security Is Not Up For Grabs.” In June 2010, Talking Points Memo reported, “In an interview from three weeks before the Nevada Republican primary, Sharron Angle made it clear that getting rid of Medicare and Social Security is a non-negotiable issue for her … Going on in the interview, Angle talks about how as a Senator she would work with other legislators to formulate a proper solution for her idea, haggling over the details and implementation of privatization without giving up on the main idea itself: ‘The idea of privatizing and getting out of Medicare and Social Security is not up for grabs.’” [Talking Points Memo, 6/14/10]

Angle: “I’m Not Sure Just Where In The Constitution The Federal Government Is Even Supposed To Be Involved In Our Medicare.” During a September 2009 campaign event, Sharron Angle said, “We need to send people back there who are willing to look at what’s wrong because we know that Medicare Part D might have been a good idea when it started out, but once it goes through the legislative process it becomes compromised and pretty soon it doesn’t work. And I’m not sure just where in the Constitution the federal government is even supposed to be involved in our Medicare. You know, these are things that could be done on the state level much better.” [Angle Campaign Event, 9/1/09 (emphasis added)]

Angle On Medicare: “We Need To Phase It Out.” In October 2009, the Review-Journal reported, “As for Medicare, she (Angle) said the entitlement program popular with seniors will eventually grow too costly to maintain… ‘We need to phase it out,’ she said.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/21/09]

LARSON: She doesn’t think insurance companies should have to cover the colon cancer tests that saved my life.

On Screen: No Coverage for cancer tests / SB 183, 5/16/03

On Screen: Holly Larson, Cancer Survivor

FACT: ANGLE WAS ONE OF JUST TWO VOTES IN THE ASSEMBLY TO VOTE AGAINST REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COVER COLON CANCER SCREENINGS

Angle Voted Against Requiring Coverage Of Colorectal Cancer Screenings. Angle in 2003 was one of only two votes in the Assembly against SB 183, which required health insurance companies to cover screenings for colorectal cancer, if they provide treatment for colorectal cancer. [SB 183, 5/16/03]

Even The American Cancer Society’s Lobbyist Testified Her Insurance Did Not Cover Colonoscopies. While urging members of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee to pass SB 183, American Cancer Society Lobbyist Buffy Gail Martin disclosed, “Just as a side note, I am an employee of the American Cancer Society.  However, my medical insurance company operating in the state of Nevada does not cover colonoscopies.” [Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee Minutes, 4/25/03 (emphasis added)]

FACT: ANGLE BRAGS ABOUT INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO REPEAL ALL STATE COVERAGE MANDATES

Angle Touted Bill To Remove Coverage Mandates. During an April 2010 debate, Angle said, “If you go to my website you will see my record. As your state legislator I introduced three bills. One would have taken off all of the mandates on insurance, and that’s one of the solutions that we have to have a Senator that will go and introduce something like that that says we don’t have mandated coverages on insurance.” [Anger is Brewing Senate Debate, 4/23/10]

Angle Touted Legislation That Would Have “Created A Basic Health Insurance Policy” Without Coverage Mandates On Her Primary Campaign Website. According to Angle’s pre-primary website, “Assemblywoman, Sharron Angle introduced affordable insurance legislation that removed costly mandates and created a basic health insurance policy, with the ability to add those benefits that were specific to each person.” [Angle Campaign Website, 6/8/10, via TheRealSharrnAngle.com]

FACT: ANGLE EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THE CHARGE THAT SHE OPPOSES INSURANCE COVERAGE MANDATES FOR MAMMOGRAMS AND COLON CANCER SCREENINGS BY BRAGGING ABOUT HER BILL TO REPEAL COVERAGE MANDATES

Asked About Attacks On Her Record And Rhetoric Regarding Health Care Coverage Mandates Angle Bragged About Trying To Repeal Coverage Mandates And Attacked Reid For Supporting Coverage Mandates.” During a July 2010 interview with the Review-Journal, Angle addressed attacks on her record and rhetoric on the campaign trail:

BOARD MEMBER: Let’s ask you some questions then. The latest mailer that Harry Reid has sent out is one that says you voted against requiring insurance companies to pay for mammograms and colonoscopies. So tell us your rationale for that.

ANGLE: Remember one of the things that we said would always be a good health care cost reform is to eliminate mandated coverages and allow people to participate in a just a basic plan and add the coverages they needed and take on those costs so that they knew what they were actually taking on. Those things that Harry Reid is complaining about are mandated coverages. And we have so many now in this state of Nevada that many insurers won’t even come in this state because they can’t.

BOARD MEMBER: How many are there?

ANGLE: How many insurers are there?

BOARD MEMBER: Mandates.

ANGLE: Mandates, I’m not even sure. When I left there were 21. And I don’t know how much beyond that. I’ve heard bigger numbers, but that was one of the things that I even had a bill to remove those mandates here in the state because every time they put a mandate on, somebody can’t afford it, somebody drops off those affordable insurance rolls and now they are uninsured. So if Harry Reid is really genuine and wants people to be insured, he needs to give them the opportunity to afford insurance and one of those things is to take off those mandated coverages, not put on more.  [Angle Interview with the Review-Journal Editorial Board, 7/25/10 (emphasis added)]

FACT: ANGLE WANTS TO REMOVE ALL COVERAGE MANDATES – BOTH IN NEVADA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Angle: The Answer To Health Care “Is Take Off The Mandates For Coverage In The State Of Nevada And All Over The United States.” During an August 2009 campaign appearance, Angle discussed her ideas on health care. She said, “The first one is let us go outside state lines and get a competitive insurance company. The second one is take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States. But here you know what I’m talking about. You’re paying for things that you don’t even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything they want to throw at us now is covered under ‘autism.’ So that’s a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave? I’m not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. Those are the kinds of things we want to get rid of.” [Angle Campaign Event, 8/29/09]

Angle: “If You Don’t Have 23 Mandates That Are In The State Of Nevada That Say You Have To Have This And This Coverage, You Can Then Cut Your Costs On The Coverage.” During a September 2009 appearance on Face to Face, Angle explained her answer on health care:

RALSTON: What’s the answer then; tell me what the answer is?

ANGLE: I’m saying that our free market system is the answer. We have a lot of things that we can do. One of them is just letting people go across state lines to make choices on their interests—

RALSTON: Insurances across state lines…

ANGLE: yeah, that’s right…Another one is to cut down on all of the government mandates that are on healthcare. If you don’t have 23 mandates that are in the state of Nevada that say you have to have this and this coverage, you can then cut your costs on the coverage.

RALSTON: Well let’s jus take that just for instance, because that’s a Conservative principle that I’ve heard you and other Conservatives say, let’s not have so many mandates. But some of those things people would argue the counter. If we don’t force insurance companies to cover certain things whether it’s treatments for cervical cancer or something like that, then you’re hurting healthcare by not doing that on the other end. Don’t just think that it’s government’s responsibility to make sure that insurance companies cover certain things.

ANGLE: No, I don’t think so. I think that supply and demand…the whole point of our country and the freedom of that system. If we want those coverages, we’ll go out and buy those coverages and they then will supply those coverages. Those kinds of things, you know we are going to shop around for the insurance company that is going to supply the thing that we need. Those are the kind of coverages that I want. You know, it works the same way for car insurance, when we go out we get a basic policy, and then if we want collision or if we want comprehensive then we go out and we buy that too, and we find the lowest price car insurance to provide the kind of things that we need. And that’s what will happen on the free market scale. [Face to Face, 9/23/09]

Jon Ralston: “Angle: Insurance Mandates Are Product Of Government Bowing To ‘Politically Correct Special Interest.’” In September 2010, Jon Ralston reported, “Such as Big Autism or Big Colonoscopies or Big Pregnant Women, perhaps? That last one may be politically incorrect, but it is political correctness Angle cited last month in a speech to the Association of Health Underwriters on August 10 in explaining her opposition to mandates on insurance companies … Here's a transcription of what Angle said … ‘We know that if we could have that affordability across state lines, you’re not, you’re not afraid of competition I know you’re not, you would in fact invite it. I have friends in other states that say you know I’d like to come to Nevada, but you have problems there in Nevada. And one of the problems is unfunded, well they are unfunded, but these mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage for things that people don’t even really need! And what we need to do is get rid of those mandates, let you provide a comprehensive coverage that takes care of what people need and allows them to buy them the things that they have to have, not things that are mandated by the government. A similar policy, as the things that people write for car insurance, and life insurance, you know you write something that fits the need of a person rather than fitting what the government has done for some politically correct special interest and that’s how we got those mandates.’” [Ralston’s Flash, 9/27/10 (audio at link)]

Angle Doubled Down On Her Opposition To Requiring Insurance Companies To Cover Anything They Don’t Want To Cover. During the October 14 Senate debate, Angle was asked about her stance on requiring insurance companies to cover “anything at all”:

FOX: Okay.  Uh, we'll go to the next question.  It's still on healthcare reform and actually Senator Reid kind of paraphrased my question, but I'll rephrase it.  Uh, you've said, on various occasions, and in fact voted in the state assembly, to do away with mandated coverage of mammograms. You've come out in favor of eliminating coverage for autism and maternity leave. Is there anything that you think the insurance companies should be forced to cover?

ANGLE: America is a country of choices. Not forcing people to buy things they don't need. What we want is a basic policy where we can add the coverages that we need. I taught autistic children. I know that this is a real biomedical disorder. And it needs to have its own insurance code so that families can get the right treatment and also be covered. But the insurance mandate that we passed in this state only cares for 25% of the one out of every 110 children that have autism. We need to stop making Band-Aid uh applications and look at real solutions when we talk about healthcare, and really, forcing someone to buy something that they don't need is not the way to solve a problem.

FOX: Okay, let me rephrase that question again. Is there anything at all that you think the insurance companies should be mandated to cover? Anything?

ANGLE: Anything at all?

FOX: Yes.

ANGLE: I, I think that what we, what we have here is a choice between the free market and Americanism. America is about choices, and we need to allow people to have those choices. The free market will weed out those companies that uh don't offer as many choices, and don't have a cost effective system. Let the people decide where they want to buy their insurance. You don't have to force them to buy anything, and you don't have to force anyone to offer a product that no one wants.

FOX: Okay, so no insurance mandates? [Nevada Senate Debate, 10/14/10]

VANDE VOORT: Sharron Angle voted against background checks for people who work with kids.

On Screen: Richard Vande Voort, Family Therapist

On Screen: Against background checks / AB 239, 4/15/99

FACT: ANGLE VOTED AGAINST SETTING UP A SPECIAL FUND TO HELP NON-PROFITS PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS TO MAKE SURE VOLUNTEERS WORKING WITH KIDS AREN’T SEX OFFENDERS

Angle Voted Against Special Fund To Help Non-Profits Conduct Criminal Background Checks On Volunteers Working With Kids. In 1999, Angle was one of only two votes in the Assembly opposing AB 239, which gave nonprofit agencies access to a special fund that helped underwrite the costs of background checks on volunteers to determine whether they had committed sexual offenses. AB 239 passed the Assembly on a 40-2 vote. [AB 239, 4/15/99; Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

Girl Scouts And Boy Scouts Of America Supported The Bill. According to Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, both the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts were in favor of AB 239. Vicki N. Wright, Executive Director for the Sierra Nevada Girl Scout Council, testified that “the cost of conducting background checks on their current 4,000 volunteers was financially prohibitive. She opined A.B. 239 would address that concern, would add an extra level of scrutiny to their screening process, and would make children safer.” [Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

During A Hearing On The Bill, Angle “Expressed Concern With The Possible Invasion Of Privacy And Liability Issues Included In The Bill.” During a March discussion of AB 239 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, Angle “expressed concern with the possible invasion of privacy and liability issues included in the bill. She stated voluntary programs always stepped up to become mandatory and she did not want to see the state get involved with things of a first amendment nature.” [AB 239, 4/15/99; Assembly Judiciary Committee minutes, 3/1/99]

ASKED ABOUT THE BILL IN 2010, ANGLE’S RIDICULOUS DEFENSE WAS THAT SHE “RAISED QUESTIONS … REGARDING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN REGARDS TO PERSONAL PRIVACY AND COSTS.” In August the Review-Journal reported that Nevada law enforcement officials had endorsed Reid and attacked Angle’s extreme and dangerous record. According to the report, “What about Angle’s votes in the Assembly that Reid said demonstrated she doesn’t support law enforcement? ‘Sharron agrees with the spirit of those bills and the need for law enforcement to have the proper tools,’ Agen said. ‘However she had concerns with the execution. At the time, Sharron raised questions in committee regarding the unintended consequences in regards to personal privacy and costs.’” [Review-Journal, Political Eye Blog, 8/30/10]

NEVADA LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL DENOUNCED ANGLE’S EXTREME AND DANGEROUS VOTE

Axel James (Police Officers Research Association of Nevada): “One thing is for sure, Sharron Angle’s record on the issues important to law enforcement are just too extreme and dangerous. For example, she was one of only two votes against a special fund to help non-profits conduct criminal background checks on volunteers that are working with kids. Are you kidding me? I am a parent of five year-old triplets. Why in the world would anyone vote against a bill that ensures sex offenders are not working with our children? This bill was supported by the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts of America, but not with Sharron Angle. It’s clear Sharron Angle’s vision of Nevada and in Nevada is too extreme and too dangerous. And, when you compare that record to Senator Harry Reid, the choice couldn’t be clearer. And that’s why PORAN is supporting and endorsing Harry Reid this election.” [Reid Campaign Event, 8/30/10]

LAND: She says if you’ve been raped, you should be forced to have the baby. She calls it making lemonade out of lemons.

On Screen: Leah Land

On Screen: Force rape victims to have the baby / KXNT, 6/30/10

FACT: ANGLE OPPOSES ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST, WOULD VOTE TO FORCE A TEENAGE RAPE VICTIM TO CARRY THE FETUS TO TERM

Government Is Not God: “Would You Vote To Prohibit Abortion In All Cases?” Angle: “Yes.” [Government Is Not God Candidate Questionnaire (Question #4), via Ralston’s Flash, 8/5/10]

Angle Doesn’t Believe In Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest, Says “God Has A Plan And A Purpose For Each One Of Our Lives.” During a January interview with talk show host Bill Manders, Angle was asked to discuss her views on abortion:

MANDERS: I think the abortion issue, though…I want to talk to you a little about this. I think it’s become…I too am pro-life, but I’m also pro-choice -- do you understand what I say when I mean that?

ANGLE: Well I’m pro responsible choice. You know there’s choice to abstain, choice to do contraception. There’s all kind of good choices.

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things. [KOH, 1/25/10, via Huffington Post, 6/29/10]

Angle On Teenage Rape Victims Who Become Pregnant: Said, “I Think That Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right” Talked About Turning “A Lemon Situation Into Lemonade.” During a June 2010 interview with Alan Stock, Angle discussed her opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest:

STOCK: Let me bring up one other topic that I rarely talk about here, because it's one of those topics that's a lose-lose, but we've got to talk about it because it was brought up in your TV interview and that has to do with the issue of abortion, and whether or not abortion should be available in the case of rape or incest. The question to you at the time by the interviewer was that do you want the government to go and tell a 13 year-old child who has been raped by her father that she has to have that baby. And of course you responded 'I didn't say that I always say that I value life.' Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?

ANGLE: Well right now our law permits that. My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

STOCK: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

ANGLE: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life. [KXNT, 6/30/10, via Huffington Post, 7/8/10]

Jane Ann Morrison: It’s No Gaffe When She Says She Opposes Abortion In Every Instance… She Means It.” In a July 5 column, Jane Ann Morrison wrote, “Sharron Angle's statements aren't so much gaffes as they make one wonder: Does she really mean that? Her ‘take out Harry Reid’ stance sounded pretty fierce and has been toned down. She's trying to soften some of her seemingly unwavering positions about Social Security and Medicare, but those aren't gaffes as much as an effort to reach the middle ground by wavering. It's no gaffe when she says she opposes abortion in every instance, even in cases of rape and incest. She means it.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 7/5/10]

Associated Press: Angle Opposes Abortion In All Circumstances. In June 2010, the Associated Press reported, “Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.” [Associated Press, 6/14/2010]

Review-Journal: Angle “Took Heat For Saying She Doesn’t Believe In Abortion In Any Case, Including Rape And Incest.” In August 2010, the Review-Journal reported, “A devout Southern Baptist, Angle has said she felt a ‘calling from God’ to run for the Senate, a comment opponents mocked. She also took heat for saying she doesn't believe in abortion in any case, including rape and incest, because ‘God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives.’” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 8/8/2010]

BUNKER: As a Republican, I can’t see voting for Sharron Angle.

On Screen: Morgan Bunker

On Screen: Sharron Angle

On Screen: Not just extreme, dangerous.

REID: I’m Harry Reid, and I approve this message.

On Screen: APPROVED BY HARRY REID. PAID FOR BY FRIENDS FOR HARRY REID.

LAS VEGAS SUN: “Prominent Republicans Coming Out In Support Of Harry Reid.” “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s re-election campaign has received several endorsements, but perhaps the most unusual one has been from an upstart band of his regular rivals, who have come together to support him under a banner that screams “swing vote”: Republicans for Reid. The GOP group, formed well in advance of the midterm elections last year, has been slowly adding to its ranks ever since. For the most part, the 400-plus Republicans making up the list are prominent business owners, politicians, and political consultants with deep GOP ties — such as their leader, Sig Rogich. Many have lent their names to the Reid campaign because they have long histories with him; many others have simply determined that Reid’s policies and clout would better serve the state than Sharron Angle’s. But this is far from a band of boosters. Insofar as organized efforts go, Reid’s Republicans are a club without a clubhouse, a fraternity with no sacred oaths or traditions, a decentralized machine where all one must do to become part of the apparatus is sign on the dotted line. Republicans for Reid is, in effect, a cross-section of the party’s disenchanted.” [Las Vegas Sun, 10/24/10]

FACT: EVEN ANGLE’S HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER, HER HOMETOWN MAYOR AND EVEN HER OWN STATE SENATOR SAY IT’S IN NEVADA’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN REID TO THE SENATE

Reno Gazette-Journal: “Replacing Sen. Reid With Angle Would Be A Disaster For Nevada.” In October 2010, the Reno Gazette-Journal endorsed Reid, saying, “Reid, seeking his fifth term in the Senate, is far from perfect, but he remains an effective advocate for Nevada’s interests in the nation’s capital, a skillful politician who has used his position to make a difference in his home state and help the nation work its way out of some very difficult times. He should be re-elected.” [Gazette-Journal, Editorial, 10/17/10]

Reno Gazatte-Journal: “The next few years will be difficult ones for Nevadans. The possibility that the state will have not one but two ineffective senators representing it in Washington, D.C., is frightening. Harry Reid may not be every Nevadan’s cup of tea, and his career clearly is winding down, but he has been very good for this state. He should be elected to another term.” [Gazette-Journal, Editorial, 10/17/10]

State Senate Republican Leader Bill Raggio: “Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she ‘can’t do much harm as a junior back bencher’! Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?, I ask. I am a lifelong Republican and unlike Ms. Angle, I have never changed parties … Other than my inability to accept her extreme and often even radical ideas and positions, if there was any concern about my natural preference to endorse a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, it was removed altogether when Angle, in a secretly taped conversation, expressed her true feelings by slamming and disavowing the Republican Party saying it had ‘lost its standards and principles.’ For all these reasons, I am unable to support Sharron Angle. We need someone in the U.S. Senate who can be effective, work with others, and best represent the interests of our State.” [Ralston’s Flash, 10/7/10]

Sparks Daily Tribune: “While change for change’s sake can be good, now is not the time for Nevada to gamble on an inexperienced freshman senator with some different ideas.” [Sparks Daily Tribune, Editorial, 10/16/10]

Reno Mayor Bob Cashell (R): With The Wild Ideas She Has Going Back To Washington, Our State Will Suffer And We Would Never Get Anything Done.” In June 2010, Talking Points Memo reported, “Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, who had previously supported Sue Lowden in the GOP primary -- and now says he’s supporting Harry Reid. ‘I think Sharron Angle is just too far to the right for me,’ Cashell said on Wednesday, in an interview with the local NBC affiliate. ‘She’s an ultra-right winger. I can’t support her. I don’t support her.’ Cashell elaborated: ‘Oh she’s wild. She’s wild. I mean, with the wild ideas she has going back to Washington, our state will suffer and we would never get anything done. And so I’m supporting Harry Reid, and I will go all the way for Harry Reid.’” [Talking Points Memo, 6/11/10 (emphasis added); KRNV (Video), 6/9/10]

Republican State Senator Dean Rhoads: “We Can Support Senator Reid And Keep Rural Nevada’s Key Industries Humming, Or We Can Choose Someone Whose Out-Of-Touch Positions And Lack Of Seniority Are Sure To Put Nevada’s Interests On The Sidelines.” In October 2010, the Elko Daily Free Press reported, “State Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, announced in a letter he is backing Sen. Harry Reid … Rhoads wrote that rural Nevada depends on two legislative pillars, the Taylor Grazing Act and the 1872 Mining Law. ‘While many Democrats would like to end grazing on public lands and slap a huge royalty on hard rock mining, Harry Reid is not one of them,’ Rhoads wrote. ‘As Majority Leader of the United States Senate he puts an end to proposals like these before they ever catch flight.’ The longtime state senator wrote that the choice on Nov. 2 is clear: ‘We can support Senator Reid and keep rural Nevada’s key industries humming, or we can choose someone whose out-of-touch positions and lack of seniority are sure to put Nevada’s interests on the sidelines.’ Rhoads also wrote that the U.S. Senate will remain under control of Democrats after the election, and that rural Nevada will be worse off if Reid is voted out and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., becomes majority leader.” [Elko Daily Free Press, 10/21/10]