Substance over extremism
Nevadans have been bombarded by 30-second television ads during this U.S. Senate campaign. But Thursday, during the one-hour debate between Sharron Angle and Sen. Harry Reid, Nevadans finally had the chance to see both candidates, side by side, talk about the issues.
For nearly the entire campaign, Angle has robotically avoided deviating from prepared scripts given to her by the Washington handlers shepherding her campaign. Part of the reason for them doing so is to keep the public from finding out even more about the real Angle.
What was evident from watching the debate is that Angle doesn’t grasp the complexities of the tough issues confronting the nation. In Angle’s simplistic world, it seems that everything the free market touches is golden and everything the government touches is evil.
Take, for instance, the issue of health care — specifically, government requirements that insurance companies provide coverage of essential tests, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. When asked during the debate if insurance companies should require such screenings, Angle responded that the free market should take care of it.
As Reid aptly observed, insurance companies don’t do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Government should be restrained in what mandates it places on insurance companies, but what reasonable person believes that insurance companies should keep patients from getting potentially life-and-death diagnostic tests?
Angle isn’t simply a conservative; she is a radical, no matter how much her campaign handlers try to fool Nevadans into thinking otherwise. For instance, she has said she wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare.
But when asked during the debate why she now says she wants to “personalize” Social Security — rather than use the term “privatize” — Angle tried to mislead the public. She claimed the term “personalizing” was intended to include both private- and public-sector employees. The fact is that she is just trying to employ a euphemism to mask her true beliefs. The reality is Angle wants to dismantle Social Security.
Angle also wants to abolish important government agencies that are supposed to protect us from danger. Her views are so extreme that she wants to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. In Angle’s world, we’re not sure who would be there to make sure our drinking water is safe and that industrial plants aren’t polluting the air we breathe. Apparently, just like with insurance companies, the naive Angle thinks the free market will magically provide the necessary incentives for companies to refrain from polluting. And let’s not forget it was Angle’s free market that created the mortgage-backed securities that took the nation’s economic system to near collapse.
In contrast to Angle, Reid demonstrated Tuesday that he understands the issues and important challenges facing our economy. He also showed that he understands the pain Nevadans are facing and why he has been fighting on their behalf in our nation’s capital.
Thursday’s debate showed what is at stake in this election. Angle is a radical politician who is out of touch with the hardships and concerns faced by this state’s residents. Indeed, the debate yet again demonstrated why Nevadans should re-elect Reid, the steady hand with extraordinary influence in our nation’s capital.