Let’s play the Revisionist History Game, with Grandmaster Sharron Ang
This is bizarre, even for GOP Senate nominee Angle, who has become highly skilled at changing what actually occurred when asked about it.
Here's a transcript of what she said to Lars Larson, the man who helped give us "Second Amendment remedies," this week about a new attack on her -- audio at right:
Larson: Sounds like they’re also going after you on a vote you took on sex offenders. Do you want to help us clarify that one?
Angle: A vote that I took? You’ll have to go a little more into detail.
Larson: This is the one where apparently there was a vote…and it was at time where Nevada was going through another budget shortfall, because every government in America seems to spend more than it takes in, and they’re now running this ad…Harry Reid’s running this ad that says Sharron Angle voted to protect the privacy of sex offenders, instead of protecting background checks for the safety of our kids. And I was just looking at some of the…some of the reporting on this where they were saying that they hadn’t properly characterized your votes in that case.
Angle: Well, certainly, they didn’t, uh, this vote had to do more with our rights under the First Amendment, once more. They were trying to place more government control within, uh, places like churches and private businesses. We already have a law in place in Nevada where you do have to report if you are a sex offender, and also there are laws that have…that have you do, uh, finger, uh, fingerprinting if you’re working with kids. So, we just didn’t want that overreaching government to go in there and begin to attack groups like the Boy Scouts and churches.
----
She is referring to a Harry Reid ad -- and I gave it a "C" on "Face to Face" and that script is at the bottom of this post. But even though the spot is highly inflammatory, it refers to a bill that would have allowed the formation of a fund so non-profits could pay for background checks if volunteers were going to be around children. Angle did raise privacy issues but to say that this was about the First Amendment or that a law requiring sex offenders to register was at all relevant is seriously bizarre. More bizarre: Attack groups like the Boy Scouts and churches? Attack? Even more bizarre: She mentions the Boy Scouts, but they testified FOR the bill, which passed almost unanimously.
Here's the Reality Check script:
Now it’s time for Reality Check. Five days before early voting, the Nevada Senate race is filling the airwaves. Here’s the latest from Harry Reid:
This is another in what I call the Sharron Angle and the Extremes series from Team Reid. Before I get to the claims in the ad, let’s talk about the bill in question.
It was introduced in 1999 to create a fund to help nonprofits pay for the costs of background checks on volunteers who work with children to see if there were sexual offenses on record.
Angle was one of only two Assembly members to vote against the bill. Sixty of 63 legislators supported it.
So did she say background checks were an invasion of privacy? Not quite. Let’s highlight everything she said, according to the legislative minutes of March 1, 1999:
“Ms. 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. She also asked Mr. Nolan to expound on the chilling effect of the legislation.”
That’s a reference to bill sponsor Dennis Nolan, who explained there was no mandate and added: “The rights we are weighing here are the rights of innocent children who participate in organizations under the supervision of adults and the need to make sure those children are protected."
That seemed to sway Angle at the time – she voted for the bill in committee, according to the minutes. But a month and a half later, despite only minor changes, she voted against the measure on the floor.
Now saying she voted “voted to protect the privacy of sex offenders instead of the safety of our kids” is ridiculously inflammatory. And it’s the kind of language that tends to undermine the legitimacy of the criticism.
But is it legitimate to call Angle “extreme” for being one of only three lawmakers to oppose this relatively noncontroversial bill? I suppose. But I suppose others would say she is principled, being an absolutist on privacy issues, even if it possibly could result in kids being less safe.
This is a classic case of cherry-picking vote to make a case. Unfortunately for Angle, there are a lot of issues where she was in a tiny minority voting against. So it fits in the general Team Reid theme – I think it just goes a bit too far. I give it a C.