Sharron Angle Tells PAC She Opposes Gay Adoptions, Wants Clergy To Endorse Candidates

by Frances Martel | 1:20 pm, August 6th, 2010

» 19 comments

Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle seems unable to make any political statement without making some jaws drop– a quality she has attributed to the fact that the press is not her “friend.” But even without the press around, as demonstrated in a questionnaire she answered for a conservative PAC, her policies are controversial: she says she supports legislation to ban adoptions by gay couples, allow clergy to endorse candidates, and restrict the sale of pornography. The PAC endorsed her.

The questionnaire was obtained exclusively by the AP, and, perhaps because Angle knew she was answering the questions of a more favorable audience, provided some extreme answers to questions about social issues. For one, Angle claimed she would be a strong opponent of the right of gay couples to adopt children in the Senate and opposes making sexual orientation a protected minority under the Constitution. A fetus, however, would be protected, according to her interpretation of the Constitution, and she would push legislation banning abortion “in all cases.”

But it is perhaps her views on the First Amendment of the Constitution that are most shocking. Angle, according to her spokesman, “believes it is improper for the federal government to use the threat of revoking tax exempt status against churches and pastors” in a case where said churches and pastors are endorsing political candidates. She writes to the PAC that she would like to see religious organizations have the right to endorse political candidates straight from the pulpit (this would be a good place to note the PAC she filled out the questionnaire form is named “Government is not God”).

In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid‘s campaign called her positions “radical” and “frightening.”

The last time we checked– before Angle’s comments about being friendly to the media and these new positions on social issues– Angle was trailing 46% to 48%, with a trend in favor of Reid swelling. Given that Angle did receive the endorsement of this organization– which has also endorsed Marco Rubio in Florida and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona– it is difficult to gauge whether the public knowledge of these opinions is a good or bad thing for her campaign, as she did win the nomination based on the fact that she her ideas were this radical, but it’s hard to see this doing anything positive to her approval ratings among moderates and independents, and even the most staunch Republicans might have a hard time understanding why she insists on religious institutions having a direct hand in American politics.

2010 elections, Abortion, clergy, Constitution, gay rights, Harry Reid, Nevada, Republicans, Sharron Angle

http://TheDividedStatesBlog.com Publius219

Anyone seen the South Park episode about Mormonism? I wish they’d do one all about Sharron Angle in that same format. Dum dum dum dum dum dum.
paulmdoro

According to The Plum Line Angle also stated that she would refuse money from any organization that supports gay rights.
stoogedudes

paulmdoro said:
According to The Plum Line Angle also stated that she would refuse money from any organization that supports gay rights.

In other words, Merry Christmas, Harry.
paulmdoro

stoogedudes said:
In other words, Merry Christmas, Harry.

Pretty much. She’s, um, kind of out there.
Bootleghaircut

Which endorsement would be worse: Pat Roberson-a homophobic sexist or Jerimiah Wright the black racist?
Or that witch hunting pastor of sarah palins.

Yes the pope needs a bigger role in the American primary process

Yeah that would swell for all kind politics.

Let’s let the American Clergy play kingmakerS!
felixw

The Left seriously misunderstands the voter if they think publicizing this stand will hurt Angle’s chance in the election. I tuned in Rachel Maddow last night and heard a similarly out-of-touch rant — Rachel was blowing a fuse because some Republicans running for office actually opposed partial-birth abortions. You’d have thought she was accusing them of some awful crime. Maddow didn’t actually stand there brandishing a vacuum cleaner hose, but almost….

In general, the more pundits on the Left actually tell people their honest views, the worse it will be for Democrats in the Fall. Whenever the leftists drop their guard and start proclaiming their agenda, most folks are horrified. That’s why they are usually careful, and stick to character attacks and smears, rather than engage in policy discussions.
paulmdoro

Ladies and gentlemen, presenting another round of “Partisan Rhetoric 101,” here’s felixw. The left just attacks and smears! The right just engages in policy discussions! “The regular folk” are terrified and horrified! Someone, please, save the children!
redleaf

It’s important to oppose gay adoptions.
It’s way better for the child to live in a foster home or with two unfit parents than to be raise by two members of the same sex who love them.
Azarkhan

“partial-birth abortions”

Isn’t that a late-term abortion procedure were the baby is partially delivered and then a sharp object is inserted in its skull to kill it?

Why would anyone oppose that?
Patrick Henry

As radical as all of this might seem to the left, I believe she will win. Harry might try to appear to be the “mainstream” candidate, but I think people know what he is truly about and are fed up with it.
adel

Pollster has Reid currently ahead riding a momentum shift… Evidence that exposure has hurt her in NV?
Contessa

It’s really quite simple. If there IS a God, she won’t win. If there is NO God, she’ll win. Finally, some proof.
stoogedudes

felixw said:
The Left seriously misunderstands the voter if they think publicizing this stand will hurt Angle’s chance in the election. I tuned in Rachel Maddow last night and heard a similarly out-of-touch rant — Rachel was blowing a fuse because some Republicans running for office actually opposed partial-birth abortions. You’d have thought she was accusing them of some awful crime. Maddow didn’t actually stand there brandishing a vacuum cleaner hose, but almost…. In general, the more pundits on the Left actually tell people their honest views, the worse it will be for Democrats in the Fall. Whenever the leftists drop their guard and start proclaiming their agenda, most folks are horrified. That’s why they are usually careful, and stick to character attacks and smears, rather than engage in policy discussions.

You know what, I agree with you. I myself am against abortions, except in the case of the life of the mother being in jeopardy. I think in the case of rape and incest, instead of getting rid of the baby, they should put the child up for adoption, if they don’t wish to keep the baby. Yet, according to many liberals (and I consider myself to be a liberal), this is an extreme anti-abortion position. I don’t get it. This is one issue I part with liberals on, guns are another.
Patrick Henry

stoogedudes said:
I myself am against abortions, except in the case of the life of the mother being in jeopardy. I think in the case of rape and incest, instead of getting rid of the baby, they should put the child up for adoption, if they don’t wish to keep the baby. Yet, according to many liberals (and I consider myself to be a liberal), this is an extreme anti-abortion position. I don’t get it. This is one issue I part with liberals on, guns are another.

Wow, Stooge, I’m a conservative and we agree. What are your “liberal” views? I would like to see how far apart we are. Must be fiscal.
cockistan

I think in the case of rape and incest, instead of getting rid of the baby, they should put the child up for adoption, if they don’t wish to keep the baby.

This is a really easy stance to take if you’re an an adult male who never has to experience being a young girl raped by someone twice their age (relative, neighborhood rapist, who cares) and then has to go through 10 grueling months before actually having the baby, all against her will.

Also, partial birth abortion is a rarely used form of abortion and it’s only used in the instance that the mother will die. No one has ever decided all of the sudden, at the point of childbirth, “hey, you know what, I changed my mind, kill it”. Abortion opponents and the right will never understand this. It’s all very cut and dry for them. They hate details. They hate science. They just want everyone to have babies, not be gay, own guns and complain about how the liberals are ruining their idea of America being a static, nineteenth century fantasy land.

I also read that people are starting to realize who Harry Reid “really is” and they’re fed up. HEY. Doesn’t it matter what Sharron Angle is? A hard-right extremist who wants more church influence and less personal freedom? Really? That would be better than Harry Reid? Do you people even read what you type before you press ‘submit’?
murphy0071

Sharon Angle is a ditz. She is an illiterate hillbilly who has been brainwashed by right wing religious nuts and the Republican Party. Anyone in Nevada who has followed her outrageous positions is very unlikely to vote for this piece of Satan’s work. Sharon Angle is not welcomed by most Republicans and is seen as a total fruit cake. Her position on Gays and Abortion show that she is completely out of tough with reality. But, people are right, Republicans as a group are out of touch with reality and could care less about their constituents, unless they are extremely rich and powerful and want to squander money on themselves and their political shills.
felixw

cockistan said:
This is a really easy stance to take if you’re an an adult male who never has to experience being a young girl raped by someone twice their age

And it’s really easy to be in favor of abortion if you’ve already been born.
cockistan

That makes absolutely no sense. The point still stands that you have no idea what you’re talking about. If religious zealots can make those kind of scientific decisions, why aren’t they more involved in other realms of science? Why aren’t they more involved in NASA?

But hey, I’ll bite. Here’s my take.

No, not every baby needs to be born. Not every conception has to be seen through. It’s not essential for us as a society to make sure every single time a woman gets pregnant, she has to have a baby. It IS actually essential for us to make sure we don’t have irresponsible conceptions that lead to abortions, which is why it’s absolutely necessary to teach safe sex and not something that has proven to not work, like abstinence.

Abortion should be legal. Absolutely legal, throughout the country. And make no mistake, my stance is based on personal experience and an education, as opposed to a thousands-year-old book full of murder, war and contradictions.
Nachi

Exactly what we need! Filtering even more right-wing hatred thru Jesus. The constant invocation of Christ, mixed with totally empty “patriotism.” Indoctrination thru repetition. Intellectual abstinence. Neo-fascists disguised as Christian Republicans. It’s always worked before! The rancid masses love it. Yup.