It's almost unfair to Sharron Angle - Macleans.ca
 

It’s almost unfair to Sharron Angle


 

to have a Republican of Michael Gerson’s verbal dexterity take her on.

Gerson writes in today’s WaPo:

“Just to be clear: A Republican Senate candidate has identified the United States Congress with tyranny and contemplated the recourse to political violence. This is disqualifying for public office. It lacks, of course, the seriousness of genuine sedition. It is the conservative equivalent of the Che Guevara T-shirt — a fashion, a gesture, a toying with ideas the wearer only dimly comprehends. The rhetoric of “Second Amendment remedies” is a light-weight Lexington, a cut-rate Concord. It is so far from the moral weightiness of the Founders that it mocks their memory.”

The backstory is here.


 
Filed under:

It’s almost unfair to Sharron Angle

  1. This just can't be right, only the left threaten violence, right?

    • jarrid will be right here to set you straight…he must be right around the corner…

      • I hear CPC donations are down this quarter, the talking points might be Canadian only.

  2. Is it just me, or did she come this close to saying that she hopes Harry Reid gets defeated at the ballot box because if not, somebody's gonna have to shoot him.

    • She said the key to success was having Reid "taken out". A few days later we got to see her clarify that she was not, in fact calling for the assassination of her prospective opponent, which was nice of her.

      • I think it's a fair bit worse than saying Reid needs to be "taken out". That could just be an unfortunate turn of phrase.

        However:

        “I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies,” Angle said. “I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

        I mean, WTF!?!?!

        Just how else am I supposed to interpret her hope that the nation can avoid the "second amendment remedy" for the "Harry Reid problems" other than as meaning "I hope we don't end up having to shoot Harry Reid"?

        • Oh, jeez, that's a different one then. And hard to misinterpret.

          Good thing a Democrat didn't say it.

  3. She is a paragon of the current republican party.

  4. On Joe Scarborough's show the other day – that bastion of progressive leftism – the collected pundit-iots declared her doomed.

    So there may be hope for her yet.

  5. It's not just Angle that's making noises about guns and second amendment and armed revolution to preserve their freedom (from the terrible tyranny of a halting step towards universal health care, i.e. the freedom to lose your job or get sick or be poor.) It's the whole tea party movement.

    And can you IMAGINE if Sharron Angle were black and said that? Or if the tea party movement were instead a black movement, getting all hysterical and saying the government should be overthrown? And it were black people suggesting that a white president (or Harry Reid) should be "taken out"?

  6. "First things first: take him out. After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament ……. Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead." Scott Reid, Globe/Mail, Nov 29, 2009

    At least America has proper debates and things get discussed. Scott Reid wrote death threat to PM in Globe/Mail not too long ago and no one said a thing – interesting that incitement laws only apply to some – and still appears regularly on cbc after advocating for the assassination of a Prime Minister.

    "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

    • Sigh.

      Equating what passes for macho man politics, spoken by a backroom jerk in Canada with Republican candidate Ms. Angle's disgusting dog-whistle is equivocation at its worst.

      The tea-party people in the U.S. are as confused about what they stand for as the griping nomads in streets of Toronto during the G20. In fact, the only thing tea people seem reasonably certain about is that their current President is a non-American fascist-communist-socialist Manchurian candidate, illegitimate and non-white to boot. Oh, and probably Muslim, too.

      They can all agree as to what their agin', that's fer sure, you betcha.

      Ms. Angle is just their latest avatar to implode.

    • That is just so idiotic.

      Reid may have been a moron to say that, but it was pretty clearly a metaphor, and anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see that (hint, the Prime Minister is not a jungle dwelling animal). That's why I don't think Angle's call for Reid to be "taken out" is all that bad either. However, her invocation of the Second Amendment is something else entirely.

      Angle was openly discussing the "Second amendment solution" to the "Harry Reid problems". She was literally saying, I hope we can stop our opponents at the ballot box, because if we can't, we'll have to use our guns.

      And even if one was silly enough to think that the two comments amount to the same thing, one was made by a private citizen not running for any office, rhetorically comparing the PM to a dangerous animal that must be stopped, and the other was made by a candidate for election to the United States Senate, urging her supporters to hold off on shooting her opponent until after the results of the election are known, 'cause maybe shooting him might (she hopes) not be necessary.

      Not the same at all.

    • "Scott Reid wrote death threat to PM"

      Libel much?

      • So saying "kill him dead" isn't what's offensive to you, but rather daring to suggest that saying "kill him dead" could somehow be interpreted as kill him dead.

        Welcome to today's Liberal apologistic mindset.

        • When sportscasters start saying "The Toronto Maple Leafs second amendment remedied the Ottawa Senators 5-2 last night", then you will look not quite so absurd.

          • Actually, I don't think that's quite the right analogy. What would be analogous to chet's point is if a defenseman for the Leafs was charged with uttering death threats for going on T.V. and saying "I'm going to absolutely kill Jason Spezza tonight".

    • To everything – spin, spin, spin
      This is a season – spin, spin spin
      And a time for every cheap trick under heaven

      A time to make up, a time to lie
      A time to misrepresent, a time to hide
      A time to say kill, maybe Reid will
      A time to laugh, a time to weep

      To everything – spin, spin, spin
      This is a season – spin, spin spin

    • The apologists explaining this stuff away in the comments is pure gold. It's the mindset that permeates our discourse. A pooping puffin is a nefarious symbol which must be discussed ad nauseam to determine the depths to which it discloses the dark underbelly that is conservatism.

      Saying "kill him dead" on a national medium by a top Liberal, is explained away as "nothing to see here".

      If you want a look into the mindset of todays Liberal media, look no farther than the commenters here.

      • "The apologists explaining this stuff away in the comments is pure gold."

        Spot on, I was thinking of same thing. I think it goes long way to explaining why Libs are struggling to get above 30% support in polls.

        • So what explains the Conservatives' struggle to get above 35%?

  7. There's nothing the liberal media loves better than "Red on Red" attacks.

    Most "Blue on Blue" stuff is reserved for the far regions of the conservative blogosphere. Go there, and you'll see it all the time. Not the stuff of proper "progressive" reporting though.

    • Well, Gerson's dislike of Angle may partly reflect that they are from the precise opposite sides of the political spectrum. Gerson has said that he would probably be a Democrat, save for the issue of abortion. In Bush's white house he was a big champion of initiatives like more aid to Africa. Like Bush, Gerson leaned to the left on economic issues, but to the right on social issues. Angle is a radical libertarian and the tea party movement with which she is associated represents a serious challenge to Bush-Gerson compassionate conservatism.

      This kind of a divide is more problematic than the divides within the Democratic party. Some of the Democrat divides are personal – Obama and Clinton stood for the same things, but inspired very different groups of supporters. Those kinds of divisions do not usually pose long-term dangers, however, because at the end of the day, the policy of one candidate will not alienate supporters of the other. The other division is Blue Dog – Moveon. Like any party, there are some members that are further out on the political spectrum, and some centrists. Compromise is still possible, however, because there is usually broad agreement on general principles.

      The tea party movement, in contrast, is not just a bunch of far-right Republicans. It represents a fundamentally different set of priorities from those that have characterized the GOP at least since 2000 – namely the repudiation of the state. Neocons love the state – they need it to fight wars. Fundamentalist evangelicals also love the state, since they need it to impose their values on others. The tea party, if it is to succeed in creating a genuine libertarian force needs to draw on some key constituencies of the Democratic party, instead of integrating itself with the GOP.

  8. There's some freakishly, scary stuff coming out of the Dem side. But those comments aren't foisted to the top, becoming the words of a new apparant party standard bearer for all the party to wear, but rather stay safely buried, unfit for popular consumption.

    Like the principle motive for NASA now to be an institution for Muslim outreach.

    Ever hear that one? From Obama's top guy in the area. That came out days ago and is all over the conservative net. Don't expect to see it in the NYTimes, WaPo et al any time soon.

    • There's a reason it's all over the conservative net and not the NY Times, and it ain't bias. They still look down on "spurious and crazy" in the MSM.

  9. This whole cycle has a bit of a 1972 ring to it. There is some genuine discontent with the current administration and America's place in the world (just as Nixon was not super-popular, and America appeared to be in decline in 1972). However, the Democrats blew their chance to make a serious challenge by nominating hippie McGovern (one of his primary opponents referred to him as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion and acid." He then proceeded to pick Eagleton as his VP candidate (Eagleton had coined the amnesty, abortion and acid phrase), overlooking the fact that Eagleton had a history of mental illness. This was but the first misstep in one of the most inept campaigns in American history.

    The Republicans probably will gain seats, but lost a surefire win in this case by nominating a nutcase. This won't be the only seat they blow in this fashion. Rand Paul is now polling even with Conway in Kentucky (he initially had a lead of over 20 points). Their primary cannibalism in Florida pushed Crist out of the party – he now leads in that race and may end up caucusing with the Democrats.

    That the tea party candidates are political lodestones should not surprise anybody. According to Pew's ideological survey, libertarians are by far the smallest subset of a two-dimensional political spectrum (social issues on one axis, economic ones on the other). Further, many of these candidates are on the fringes – they care less about losing than the election than about sticking to their principles. While that is laudable, it is also unfortunate for them, since their principles do not square with middle America. Perhaps 20 years from we will see some of their radical ideas start to make headway (as was the case for the hippies), but it ain't going to happen overnight.

    What is particularly bothersome is the fact that these right wing hippies are going to allow Obama to continue the Bush legacy of downturns, debt and dead soldiers by failing to present a reasonable alternative.

    • I agree. The Republicans have an historic opportunity that they appear to be doing everything possible to waste. Without credible candidates, the GOP has no hope of making the gains necessary to win back control.

    • I'm not sure why anyone would give your posts a negative rating, as they are substantive….but I'd like to push you on something. Do you really think the Tea Partiers are libertarian? Everyone jumped on that bandwagon with Rand Paul's comments on civil rights, but then it's emerged that he's explicitly dismissed that label, and in fact was a big fan of state intervention on many social issues.

      I'm not really disagreeing with you. It's more that I can't figure it out. The Tea Party's twin poles of populism and libertarianism go very awkwardly together, but I imagine a decent communications team could make it work as long as you don't have people like Paul go off message, and as long as you have Palin stick to aspirational statements.

  10. It's a beautiful piece of writing…a very literate slice and dice.

    And carries weight in the US where assassination is no small fear.