No Such Thing as a Right Angle

Sharron Angle was my State Assemblywoman. God help us all if my home state makes her a U.S. Senator.

by Scott Daniel // October 26, 2010

Here’s something I’ll bet you’ve never heard about. In 1999, a group of anti-federal activists staged a protest in the Jarbidge Wilderness of Northeastern Nevada. Literally armed with pick-axes and shovels, participants in the so-called “Jarbidge Rebellion” defied the will of the U.S. Forest Service. The Service had closed a single dirt road that allegedly threatened the natural habitat of the bull trout in the nearby river. Modeling their efforts after the Boston Tea Party, the rebels occupied the road and declared their frustration with what they perceived to be the menacing overreach of the federal government.

387 miles away in Reno, my high school government class followed this minor mutiny in bemused fascination. Even then, as a young conservative, I was uncomfortable with the idea of resorting to revolutionary tactics for what were clearly light and transient reasons. Most dismissed this group as extremist, with little hope of ever seriously competing for attention in the political mainstream.

This was 1999. We should have been paying more attention. This was the year that Sharron Angle first began her service in the Nevada State Assembly, echoing the voices rising from the Jarbidge Wilderness.

Assemblywoman Angle’s brand of paleo-conservatism, like that of the Jarbidge rebels, has garnered significant national attention of late. The national media seized on her strikingly ill-advised campaign ad depicting illegal immigrants as sullied Mexicans seeking to steal the college educations of upstanding white kids. Unfortunately, her Southern Baptist mores have steered her clear of witchcraft, putting her at a significant gotcha-exposure disadvantage against Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell. Between the two Palin acolytes, however, Sharron Angle threatens to do far more damage in Washington. Unlike the lagging O’Donnell, Angle is in a statistical dead heat with Democrat Harry Reid – Nevada’s long-serving senior Senator, the Senate Majority Leader and somehow the most hated man in Nevada politics.

Voter vexation with Reid is palpable. I won’t delve into why here; suffice it to say, though, that it is enough to put Angle within striking distance of the Senate. Credit the strength of the local Tea Party for Angle’s victory in the Republican primary in Nevada, a state with a miles-deep current of anti-government sentiment. Her shocking competitiveness in the general election is the product of the trending spirit of ABR: Anybody But Reid.

Nevada voters, I caution you in the hopes of saving you (and the rest of the nation) from a severe case of buyer’s remorse. As the assemblywoman for Nevada’s 26th district, where I once resided, Sharron Angle exemplified a brand of emergent conservative populism that is at once rigid, nihilistic and destructive, built on the shaky foundation of an imagined history and an anachronistic view of the Constitution.

You say you can’t stomach voting for Harry Reid.  Please hear my case for why you can’t afford to vote for Sharron Angle.

Citizen Legislators Must Be Competent to Legislate, and Sharron Angle is Not Competent

One of the principal arguments advanced by Angle supporters in particular and the Tea Party in general is that the Founders intended for Congress to be populated by “citizen legislators”, so-called because they are not “career politicians” who otherwise lose touch with everyday Americans. This creates an effective polemic barrier to any questions of experience or competence leveled against candidates who are woefully ill-equipped for the jobs for which they apply. Republicans advanced the same arguments in 1994 when they promised, in the “Contract with America” platform they substantially breached, to impose term limits on Congress.

This is a half-truth. The Founders did prefer citizen legislators, but not at the expense of core competence. A prerequisite for a citizen legislator is ability. Intelligence. Reason. Familiarity with the world and its workings.

Sharron Angle appears strikingly unfamiliar with the world. Earlier this month, she told a group of supporters that the cities of Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas operate under Islamic Sharia law. At the very least, Dearborn does have a significant Muslim population. Frankford, Texas, on the other hand, does not have a significant population period, primarily because it does not exist.

According to Sharron Angle, neither does autism

I really shouldn’t have to use these factual predicates to string together an analogy or syllogism. I don’t want to insult you. Because you, dear reader, are competent enough to let these statements bake into your brain for a few moments and render unto you your own conclusion.

Sharron Angle Has a (Selective) Fetish for the Founding Fathers

A good rule of thumb for this election and all future elections: beware the candidate who claims to stand on the Constitution but doesn’t actually know it. This is a recurring trend among the Tea Party crowd that clings to the incorrect belief that the Constitution creates a government so small you can drown it in a bath tub – or overthrow it with your Winchester when the mood strikes you.

This was the folly of the Jarbidge Rebellion, and it is the folly of the Tea Party and Sharron Angle. Earlier this year, Angle suggested that if the government were to overstep its boundaries, then the citizens would have the right to resort to “Second Amendment remedies.” There really is only one meaning for this: actual armed rebellion. The ideological thrust behind this statement is the “right of revolution” espoused by philosopher John Locke in the 17th century, adopted as the justification for the American Revolution and embodied in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson.

Aside from the obvious practical lunacy of advocating violent insurrection, Angle’s and the Tea Party’s application of this principle to the federal government in 2010 is off. Jefferson himself cautioned in the Declaration that wielding arms to protect your natural rights should not be undertaken for “light and transient causes”. In other words, it’s appropriate to do so when King George has taken to quartering troops in your home. It is not appropriate when the forest ranger closes down a dirt road or when Congress passes a taxing or spending bill you disagree with.

This is symptomatic of the wider philosophical prism that distorts the light that Sharron Angle sees. Like her Tea Party counterparts across the country, she wants to party like it’s 1789. Angle and those like her believe that the Constitution creates a strict, rigid restriction on the government performing anything but a few functions. This is her justification for her calls to devolve and privatize Social Security, to dismantle the Departments of Education and Energy and to completely abolish the IRS.

Against this argument, I present to you Thomas Jefferson himself, in an 1810 letter:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

What he said.

Think the Senate is Obstructionist Now? Baby, You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

Nevada has a significant revenue problem in the same way that it has a significant water problem. This is due, in part, to the lack of a stable state income tax. Nevada’s general antipathy toward taxes goes hand-in-hand with its anti-government stance: generated by the false constitutionalism that Angle advocates.

Thus, when the state faced a significant budget shortfall in 2003, moderate and reasonable Republican Governor Kenny Guinn sought a middle ground to generate revenue without imposing an income tax, primarily in order to meet the state’s Constitutional requirement that education be funded first. Despite GOP opposition in the legislature, Guinn pushed to pass the taxes by a simple majority in a special legislative session – even though Nevada voters had amended the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority for tax increases.

Why did Guinn do this? Because Angle and a cadre of Republican legislators had blocked all efforts to increase revenue and thus passed a budget with exactly zero dollars for education. In essence, Angle and Company were willing to utterly sacrifice one constitutional requirement in zealous defense of another.

It is one thing to stand on principle when life and liberty are at stake. It is quite another to so rigidly stand firm on one constitutional mandate against another constitutional mandate when funding for public schools is at stake. Unless, of course, Ms. Angle wanted the 49th-ranked public education system in the country to finance for an entire academic year through bond debt.

And Sharron Angle is allegedly a former teacher.

You can expect the same brand of obstructionism from U.S. Senator Sharron Angle.


So why is all of this important? Because when you pull the trigger to kick Harry Reid out of office, you are also replacing him with someone else.

You owe it to yourself, your state and your country to at least capture a snapshot of who that replacement is. In this case, we have Sharron Angle. A woman with a wrong and dangerously anachronistic view of the Constitution who lacks basic civic literacy and social skills and who will stop at nothing to stop everything.

I recently engaged in a conversation with an acquaintance from Nevada. She told me that nothing I could say to her would persuade her against voting for Sharron Angle. She reasoned that Harry Reid had “done too much” and was “too powerful” in the Senate, so it was time to start fresh with somebody without much influence or power. Well, I truly believe that if Nevadans elect Sharron Angle, her wish will come to fruition. At this juncture, even the Senate GOP Conference has indicated that it wants nothing to do with her.

No matter how you slice it, “right” is not the proper term for this Angle.  There is another word that more aptly describes her: obtuse.

Sources: CNN, Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Kos,, Wikipedia, Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Huffington Post, Quoteworld, Politico, My News 4 (Las Vegas).

Photo credit: Bay News 9.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Adam on October 26, 2010 - 10:55 am

    Here’s a quick counter-argument. Yes, Sharron Angle lacks a fairly basic understanding of the Constitution, much like most Americans. Yes, she has some really looney ideas. The alternative, though, is continued Democratic control of the Senate. Not that the GOP has a particularly better plan. But it’s generally been a fiasco every time during the past decade that one party controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. More successes seem to have happened when Government was divided, such as actually getting a balanced budget and a surplus under Clinton. So while Angle could be dangerous as one of the most junior of 100 senators, Reid as Majority Leader’s shown very little interest in actually solving the problems that Americans seem to care most about: jobs, jobs, jobs. His track record is, quite frankly, pitiful when it comes to trying to fix out economy considering that he’s the second or third most powerful politician in America. And he’s had four years (sixty votes for one of those years) and we’re still in a serious rut. Isn’t it time to give someone else a chance to fix it? (Assuming, of course, that the Government has any ability to “fix” the economy.)

    • #2 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:18 am

      I will concede that Harry Reid is not an ideal candidate, either, but this is the fundamental problem with the “Anybody But _________” approach that some voters take during an election cycle. Reductio ad absurdum, should Nevada voters elect a cucumber out of hatred for Harry Reid? Because, quite frankly, between Sharron Angle and a cucumber, I’d choose the cucumber for conversation.

    • #3 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:35 am

      And might I add that while divided government is generally fiscally beneficial, ours is an economic situation in which austerity is not a viable option. Economics 101: in a down cycle, you need stimulus. It’s unfortunate that stimulus spending (which was largely tax cuts, by the way) came on top of a mounting deficit created through eight years of high-bracket tax cuts and war outlays, but when your kid’s in the hospital, you figure out way to pay the bills. You don’t tighten your belt out of a newfound sense of fiscal responsibility when he’s on his deathbed. So to speak.

      • #4 by Adam Caudle on October 27, 2010 - 10:15 am

        If we reducing it to the absurd, then I prefer carrots over cucumbers b/c they have more character.

        I’d generally agree that a stimulus is theorized to bring an economy out of a rut (mainly since I don’t know enough about economics to know any better). I do disagree with your assertion that the stimulus was largely a tax cut as a significant chunk of it went to pay for federal and state construction (about 35% or better of my District’s budget last year was stimulus funds) and to shore up the municipal bond market. I’d also point out that the Tea Party fiscal anger began with TARP and then moved onto the stimulus. And TARP itself has largely been a failure according to its IG. (

        I also question the type of stimulus that was made. If we agree that the stimulus package was a combination of tax cuts and short-term construction projects (which, in my experience, are almost all completed), then you really must question whether those are the types of stimulus spending that gets a country out of a recession. If my understanding of history is correct, FDR did neither of those. Rather, he embarked on substantial federal job-creation programs such as the CCC and major public works projects that kept tens of thousands employed for years. If this is the kind of stimulus spending that’s needed to pull a country out of a major recession and the tax-cut/short-term job stimulus is ineffective, then did we just waste $1 Trillion?

      • #5 by Will Hull, MPA on October 28, 2010 - 9:28 am

        @Adam… Most of those programs under FDR failed and it wasn’t until WWII that America finally came out of the economic dark ages. I still don’t argue with federal job creation, but these days government is hollowed out using third-party governance (I had an entire semester of grad school in Public Administration devoted to this topic). Government administration isn’t done directly for the most part anymore. Third party contracting, regulations, third party self-regulation (e.g. FDA and pharmaceutical drugs), tax law (incentives and cuts), vouchers and payment systems (e.g. Medicaid and medicare), etc.

        The way it worked for FDR is that he created agencies to do direct government work. Today, that isn’t the case. We contracted out to give private companies a chance to bid for the job that stimulus funds went to. We have sites like and (created under B. Obama) and the PART (Performance Assessment Rating Tool) at (created under G. W. Bush) to indicate if these programs are effective or not.

        Likely the effects of the stimulus won’t be felt for some time. Elections and election cycles don’t wait for the economy to catch up, however. Which is the sentiment that we are feeling now toward our elected officials.

  2. #6 by Ryan McConnell on October 26, 2010 - 11:21 am

    Well done, as always, Scott.

    There must be some extreme hatred for Reid for a woman that makes gaffe after amazing gaffe to be considered a better option. I also wanted to note that many Republican figures in Nevada have NOT supported Angle because of her… well, just because of her.
    We will see if pure-hatred or common sense wins out on this one.

    • #7 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:21 am

      Unfortunately, Ryan, it appears that Pure Hatred is spotting a touchdown and a field goal to Common Sense on the Peppermill sportsbook line. I’d put money on Pure Hatred if it didn’t nauseate me.

  3. #8 by Kyle Zive on October 26, 2010 - 12:14 pm

    Great post Scott. You should have done it two weeks ago before early voting!

    I think another argument can be made that Angle will get zero respect in the Senate and with Reid, Nevada has a senator with a voice (pretty loud one too). I completely understand that folks in Nevada are frustrated with the way certain things are going he biggest being the economy. Why then elect a person (Sharron Angle) who will get no respect in the senate and get nothing done for the state. You talked about her being an obstructionist she’ll be doing that the day she get’s elected by being herself.

    Nevada currently has a the most powerful Senator working for it. Why would we want to kick ourselves when we are down. Angle won’t be able to do anything to help us get out of this situation.


    Kyle Zive

    • #9 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:24 am

      Too true, Kyle. Have you noticed how I-80 goes from smooth to scrabble the instant you cross over from Nevada to California? That’s Harry Reid’s “pork”. Not that pork is to be celebrated, but it is one example of political clout that Nevada will not sniff again if they sacrifice the Majority Leader at the alter of Insanity. C.f., South Dakota post-Tom Daschle.

      • #10 by Adam Caudle on October 27, 2010 - 10:20 am

        No offense Scott, but there’s a whole lot of people who (admittedly sometimes inconsistently) argue that Nevada, South Dakota and everywhere else needs to learn to pay for their own stuff rather than needing a handout from the federal government to provide basic services like paving roads.

  4. #11 by Will Hull, MPA on October 26, 2010 - 1:01 pm

    Great post Scott. This is amazing and poignant stuff.

    As I saw from the moment she won the primary, it is more about a vote of confidence in Reid than a vote for Angle. Most of my friends and family back home in Nevada are really conservative (coming from the northern side of the state) and they too say much of the same thing your friend said in this post. They don’t even mention Angle’s platform as a reason to vote for her. They want to revert and repeal all that was done in the most recent Congress. They see over-burdensome government encroaching on their free will. This is a fundamental reason for the rise in the conservative tide in this country. They see their freedoms being taken away, an inch at a time. I for one see it as a selfish grab for “what’s mine.” There is no concern for the fellow man, no concern for the legacy that we want to leave behind to our kids, unless it is an endowment to our own families. No concern for the impact our standard of living today will have on tomorrow. A rebellion to restore life to what it was in the 50’s – a single-income family and “hot housewives” (e.g. Palin, O’Donnell, etc. I got this last part from Bill Maher in last week’s Real Time episode).

    There is nothing in there about inhibiting all action. What many voters fail to realize is that all action will cease due to Angle digging in her heels and refusing to vote just because a vote is a vote; not because of the substance of the vote. Anonymous holds will also be a dangerous tactic for Angle to implement. We will see too much get bottled up in committee without knowing “who dunnit.”

    I agree with Kyle above, that getting rid of Reid will leave Nevada powerless to be bypassed by the majority’s will. Nevadans likely won’t see this kind of federal power in their lifetimes. The last major voice on the Hill was Pat McCarran back in the 50s (at least that is my opinion). Most people don’t give Harry Reid credit for helping to block Yucca Mountain. This is one instance that if he had not been a part of the Senate leadership, we would be seeing truckload after truckload of nuclear waste deposited into the mountain today.

    It is a shame that the GOP base in Nevada didn’t see this coming and could have chose to act differently in their primary rather than lash out at the traditional GOP for being the traditional GOP.

    There is a good book out there entitled, “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael Sandel (I had to read it during grad school in my ethics for public managers class). In this book he discusses why the majority of Americans are disgruntled by government today. He boils it down to the inherent conflict between what is good for the public good and the protection of individual rights. One can’t progress without taking ground from the other. It speaks of philosophical underpinnings from the founding of the U.S. to the modern day. This is the conflict we see and fail to elucidate when we speak of the two choices for Senate in Nevada. Many are trying to express that they are refusing to give up “what’s theirs” for the benefit of the public good. He also took part in BBC’s 2009 Reith Lectures at Georgetown in June 2009: (I tried to listen, but I think they might be disabled at the moment, but perhaps writing the BBC, they will provide a way to listen to them).

    It’s truly, for me, scary what the future may hold for Nevada and the nation this election.

    • #12 by Adam Caudle on October 26, 2010 - 2:03 pm

      @ Will, why is there an inherent conflict between the public good and the protection of individual rights? Surely there are instances, such as freedom of the press, where the public good is best served by allowing almost-maximum individual rights to investigate and publicly report on the actions of the government and individuals. If that’s the case, then what’s the conceptual framework to distinguish between those instances where the public good and individual liberty coincide and those instances where they don’t?

      And in a really convoluted way, getting rid of Reid and elect Angle would benefit the public good. One of the major issues with developing nuclear power as a non-greenhouse gas emitting power source is that there’s no economical place to store the waste. Reid’s been blocking it for the benefit of a small good (the people of Nevada) while hurting the larger good (the world). So wouldn’t it be for the greater good to get rid of him so that the U.S. can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through nuclear power rather than coal or gas?

  5. #13 by Will Hull, MPA on October 26, 2010 - 2:55 pm

    @Adam I will refer to Dr. Sandel and his book on your first paragraph and questioning.

    As to your second. Too much is at stake should an accident occur with the use of nuclear power and waste management. Now this is just wikipedia (but I am sure I can find verifying evidence elsewhere:, but the half-life of uranium is 4.468 × 10 to the 9th years or roughly the age of the planet. With Nevada on a fault line and due to the half-life issue, what’s to say that an earthquake won’t cause seepage into groundwater tables for future generations to get radiation poisoning in the drinking supply? It is a public good issue. Why does this have to be an economic issue? Right now, until there is better technology to replace it, coal/oil/natural gas are the alternative to nuclear power and much cleaner for the environment.

    • #14 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:27 am

      The upside of this, however, is that a uranium-enriched water supply could lead to some really interesting super heroes.

  6. #15 by Will Hull, MPA on October 26, 2010 - 2:56 pm

    Did I say cleaner, I meant better for the moment.

  7. #16 by Adam Caudle on October 26, 2010 - 4:40 pm

    This is really off-topic now, but you think that the probability of seepage of nuclear waste into Nevada groundwater is greater than the probability of damage from leaving the waste in the currently existing containment pools around the country will do? And that the probability of damage from nuclear groundwater seepage is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions damage from our coal and gas power plants?

    • #17 by Will Hull, MPA on October 26, 2010 - 4:59 pm

      For the moment, yes. What you were suggesting is starting up and expanding nuclear programs to rid the US of its dependence on greenhouse gas emitting power sources. With no way to effectively store the waste, why produce more? There has to be a better place to store the waste than on a fault line and geographically unstable area. Mountains erode, landscapes change in the amount of time that the half-life of uranium takes to fully exhaust itself, a lot can change. It isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Currently, we are dependent on greenhouse gas emitting power sources, I will give you that, but technology is rapidly changing the landscape to allow for alternatives beyond a nuclear option. What I am trying to say is I agree we need to rid ourselves of our dependence on greenhouse gas emitting power sources but not in exchange for a nuclear power source (unless you have Delorean made into a time machine).

      I agree, we are off topic.

      • #18 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:28 am

        Need I remind you, Will, that Doc Brown stole plutonium from the Libyans in order to generate the 1.21 jiggowats of electricity he needs?

      • #19 by Adam Caudle on October 27, 2010 - 10:30 am

        While I’ll agree that technology is changing, according to the Goracle and other uber-environmentalist (of which I am not one), we have approximately 20-40 years to change our behavior before it’s too late. Which means switching almost all of our power to non-emissions w/in the next few years. Nuclear’s the only power source that I’m aware of that at present technology levels is capable of delivering the quantity of power needed at an affordable cost.

        Of course, this whole discussion would be moot not for Ford/Carter prohibiting the commercial reprocessing of nuclear fuel. ( If not for their actions, we could be like the French and reprocess 90+ of our nuclear waste so that our storage footprint could fit inside a small building.

      • #20 by Will Hull, MPA on October 27, 2010 - 3:13 pm

        Dang. I could have swore it was uranium. Both are radioactive. Ehh… “McFly you dolt, hover boards don’t work on water… Unless you have power…”

  8. #21 by Mark Glodowski on October 27, 2010 - 4:58 am

    @Will- a comment on your reference to Reid’s role in Yucca mountain. Do you realize that allowing that waste to be stored there could have single handedly put the state budget way in the black? I agree that storing nuclear waste in your state sounds like a terrible thing to do, but desolate land is one asset which runs plentiful in Nevada. The waste would be properly stored, and it would have been out in the middle of nowhere. Scott’s blog entry references some of the consequences of our state being broke, including no funding for education. Funding issues would be alleviated had waste been allowed to be stored in Yucca. I would say Yucca is one reason I disapprove of the job Reid is doing.

    • #22 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:31 am

      Mark, I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I’d assume that revenue in the state’s coffers would be neglible with the presence of a federal waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Certainly not enough to offset the severe risks from shifting fault lines and the possible release of unstable irradiated particles into the water table. UNLV students are remedial enough as it is. Imagine how awful their fans would be if they had Uranium poisoning.

      But we’re off topic. Seriously, can somebody tell me what the original topic was?

    • #23 by Will Hull, MPA on October 27, 2010 - 3:06 pm

      From the mouth of Dr. Erik Herzik, professor of Political Science at University of Nevada, Reno in his class discussion on Nevada politics circa 2002, “Once the last truck leaves the dump, Nevada will stop getting checks.” Short term gain for a long term potential catastrophe. It’s like saying, “let’s raid Social Security now to sustain our budget, the kids can pick up the check later.” Doesn’t make any sense? Do you think that happened with the Millennium scholarship? The tobacco settlement money was all used up in less than a decade. It was put to good use, don’t get me wrong; by funding scholarships for higher education. This is a rhetorical question: do you think that the nuclear waste money that would have been generated through Yucca Mountain would have been used in a similar vein or perhaps invested to yield dividends (such as an endowment/restricted fund for a nonprofit) to continually support future generations or do you think would be squandered in less than a decade?

      The economics of the reason to build a nuclear waste site there should not be a part of the argument when it is about physical safety in water, wildlife and ecosystems. I agree that the Nevada economy could consider itself diversied by receiving federal payments, but is that really diversifying the Nevada economy.

      Nevada has always been a pragmatic state (quickie divorce, gambling, prostitution, low warehousing taxes to bring in businesses, etc.) for revenue streams. But absorbing the cost from the nuclear waste from the rest of the nation is not the answer. Nevada should never be the nation’s radioactive toilet, unless you count the Nevada nuclear test site, then it is (jokingly).

  9. #24 by Scott Daniel on October 27, 2010 - 9:37 am

    These are all great comments, but for those who are still voting for Sharron Angle, let me posit this: you have all conceded that she is incompetent. At what point do you draw the line and say, “Enough is enough, you’re unfit for office”? Simply replacing Harry Reid is not a good enough reason.

    • #25 by Adam Caudle on October 27, 2010 - 10:38 am

      It still depends Scott. For me, if Reid’s seat is the majority-making seat, then I’d be very tempted to vote for a carrot if that meant that we’d have divided government. If it were only the 49th seat, then the stakes aren’t nearly so high. But there’s also the issue of relative damage between a genius and a fool (not that Reid’s a genius). They both make the same number of mistakes. it’s just that fools aren’t generally trusted with lots of power, so a genius’ mistakes are commensurately bigger. Reid as the Majority Leader has made some pretty major screwups. Angle as a one-term junior senator would have very little opportunity to actually screw things up. Yes, she can hold stuff up for a while. But regardless of whether she’s elected or not, does anyone actually think that any major laws are going to be enacted during the next two years? If not, then what’s the harm of kicking Reid out now and Angle in six years?

      But I’m not a Nevadan, so my opinion probably doesn’t matter in this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: