Published Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2010 | 9:56 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2010 | 12:14 p.m.
In an interview with ABC’s Jon Karl in Minden this week, GOP Senate nominee denied saying that Democratic policies violate the First Commandment or that she said people might seek 2nd Amendment remedies because of distress in the populace – two things she clearly has said. It’s one thing for things to be taken out of context, as they frequently are in campaigns – it’s quite another to deny saying what is on tape!
----Angle told Karl, “No I didn’t say that,” when he asked her about saying Democratic policies have created a pagan idol (that would be government) and that violates the First Commandment (no Gods before me). She went on to say she was talking to a Christian broadcaster “in very Christian terms…. You speak the language of the folks you are communicating with, the language that I used is in our country we have become a country put our faith not in God we trust ….but in government we trust.”
Oh that clears it up so nicely. Get the sphygmomanometer for Team Angle.
And that is exactly what she said. Want the evidence?
Here’s the link to the audio and transcript of what Angle originally said:
----Karl asked Angle: “When you say if things don’t turn out the right way in this election, people may seek Second Amendment remedies. What did you mean by that?”
Angle replied, “No, I don’t think that was exactly the way I said it.”
But of course it was. Here’s exactly what she said on the Lars Larson show in January:
“I hope that’s not where we’re going but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around and I’ll tell ya the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
She later on “Face to Face” and elsewhere backed off taking out Harry Reid (literally at least). But her explanation to Karl, as many of her revisionist history moments, tried to soften the truth:
“We were discussing once again, in a context of the Second Amendment, we were having a discussion about the Founding Fathers, and why they had put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights. And, they felt that there were opp...there were times, when governments became tyrannical, that we needed to have a place for the people to be able to secure the blessings of liberty. Which is what they did in the Revolutionary War, as you know, and that was why they put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. And, that was what we were speaking of on that program was the, the, um, whole Second Amendment and why it was there.”
Not quite, eh? Anyone on Team Angle for a Second Amendment self-remedy right now?
----On domestic enemies, she told Karl she was speaking of enemies “of the free market system.” And while I still find it hard to believe she actually thinks there are Benedict Arnolds among the Gang of 535, that’s what talker Bill Manders seemed to be saying when she foolishly agreed with him as he talked about the solemn oath to defend against foreign and domestic enemies on the day she announced her candidacy in October:
Manders: "You know I talk often about this oath that they give and it is to defend the Constitution and all that. But one of the things that is very important to me in this oath that they give is that they will defend against foreign and domestic enemies."
Angle: "Yes. Yes."
Manders: "We have domestic enemies. We have home-born homegrown enemies in our system. And I for one think we have some of those enemies in the walls of the Senate and the Congress."
Angle: Yes. I think you're right, Bill."
Manders is a bloviating buffoon. But for Angle to agree with this incendiary nonsense is crazy – as Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent has argued, imagine what woiuld happen if a Democratic candidate said there are “domestic enemies” in DC?
All Jon Karl did was ask the questions. Angle has met the enemy and it is conservative loons on the AM dial – and herself.