SEIU Ad: Sharron Angle is History's Greatest Monster…to Women!


Via TPM, here's a new SEIU ad that proclaims just about everything negative you could say about Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle short of how she misspells her own damn name! Well, that and her bold stances against involvement with the United Nations and fluoridated water.

Among the charges: If Angle gets her insidious, evil way, there will be no abortions, no college loans, and no jobs! The ad shows a woman aging from young kid to blinky-eyed senior as a voiceover intones:

Sharron Angle's dangerous ideas will make her life worse—at every stage… If she was raped—and got pregnant—Angle would force her to have the baby. Her college loans—ended. If she's looking for work—it's tough luck with Sharron Angle. At retirement her Social Security—phased out. Sharron Angle: too dangerous to have real power over real people.

That's pretty good work for a lady whose greatest political success so far is battling a zombie politician and Senate Majority Leader to what appears to be a dead heat this election cycle. That's a testament to the actual craptacular legislative resume of Harry Reid, not the Book of Revelation-style apocalypse Angle promises to bring if elected to the World's Lamest Deliberative Body.

I wouldn't vote for Angle (or Reid) if I lived in Nevada, but I find ads like this, which skip from one thing to another and pretend to be aimed at the womens annoying. I believe in abortion rights and I don't think anyone should be concerned that Angle's extreme (and, let's face it, totally logically consistent from a pro-life POV) position has any chance in hell of prevailing.

The implication in the ad is that Angle would gut public-sector college loans, which is also unlikely. Though unlike abortion, it's a question worth raising. If people agree that untold gobs of free and subsidized money helped to fuel the housing bubble and bust, certainly exactly the same thing is true in higher education, where the bubble is barely starting to be recognized (the first step to it bursting). Certainly, Angle would have no role in killing private-sector college loans, anymore than she would create a world in which "jobs" themselves would be against the law. If the SEIU, that incredible job-creating collective, is claiming that Angle would drive the economy into an iceberg and thus kill employment opportunities, well, she got to that party too late. Which is the only reason she's neck and neck (if he has one) with Harry Reid.

Which leaves us with Social Security, especially as it relates to women, the target of this particular spot. Women are more likely to depend on Social Security in retirement, especially if they are unmarried. Which is also one of the reasons they should be vociferously arguing for the end of the program:

Women depend on Social Security more than men. Based on Social Security data, almost 29 percent of women over age 65 rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their retirement income. That number increases to 46 percent for unmarried elderly women….

The expectation of a Social Security payment can make women worse off as it reduces their incentives to save and prepare for their own retirements.

Imagine if a woman could have saved and invested the 12.4 percent of her income she paid for years in payroll taxes (including the employer's share) for Social Security. She could have it available in case of emergency during her lifetime or pass it along to her children or grandchildren if she didn't need it anymore.

Depending on Social Security payments also makes women vulnerable to changes in government policies. At any time, Congress can reduce benefits even for people who paid their entire lives into the system. In a sense, it did that earlier this month by saying Social Security recipients won't get a cost-of-living increase this year.

That's from a column at Bloomberg by Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, who runs through what a pro-woman political agenda would look like (sadly, neither party is offering much). What she says about women above obviously applies to men as well. And anybody who doesn't think that cuts to Social Security benefits are coming is way, way out to lunch (perhaps from too much fluoride in the water?).

As I noted above, I don't have a case to make for Sharron Angle, whom I wouldn't vote for. But what the SEIU ad, and so many other attacks on her and other Tea Party candidates, miss is that characters like Angle don't need a case to make. They're running against the abject failure of the idjits already in office, most of whom have been in office a very long time (Reid's been in the Senate since 1986!) and have little to nothing to show for it. It's a testament to incumbents' incompetence that we're facing a great tsunami of throw-the-bums-out fever (sorry for the mixed metaphor!) and that all you need to play is the ability to present, as Angle has done, a semi-credible alternative to the status quo. That's not dangerous, it's democracy.

NEXT: Proposition 19 Falling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “SEIU’s new ad…”

    ‘Nuff said.

    1. Senators: too dangerous to have real power over real people.

      ‘Nuff said.

      1. Muff said.

        1. Muff said what?

          1. “Phhhhhfffffffffttttt.”

  2. Of course SEIU would take this low road. They’re a union, after all.

  3. I believe in abortion rights[…]

    There’s no such thing as “abortion rights.” There’s only individual rights or personal rights.

    How strange many advocate for a better world (even us libertarians) yet a few of these advocates don’t want some people to be born into it. What a contradiction…

    1. I think he means he believes in the individual right to have one’s offspring dismembered in the womb and vacuumed out, and then used as ingredients in a delicious stew, followed by sticking one’s finger down one’s throat and puking it up into the toilet.

      1. Yeah, because a group of cells is a person. So that tumor on your nuts is a person now too, Tulpa?

        1. Tumors as asexual reproduction, discuss…

          1. You have seen The Brood, right?

            I think of Tulpa as Samantha Eggar.

            1. You have seen The Brood, right?

              Wrong, but Netflix will soon correct that mistake.

              1. Throw all the early Cronenberg in your cue. They are all incomplete visions (I think he only brings his full vision in Videodrome and to a lesser extent Scanners), but they are all entertaining.

                1. True facts. I am a big fan of Dead Ringers too. Medieval looking gynecological instruments… and Percodan!

        2. Yeah, because squeezing through a vagina transforms a “group of cells” into a person.

          I will be utterly surprised if you have the cajones (tumescent or otherwise) to respond to this, even with the flippant non-content in which you specialize.

          1. I don’t think it’s person even then, tough guy. It’s a completely blank slate. So kill it. You can make another one.

            1. At least you’re consistent, you reprobate.

              1. Your impotent disapproval is like sweet, sweet candy to me.

                1. Well OK. Just don’t stuff yourself and make yourself sick and get nightmares.

            2. Re: Episiarch,

              I don’t think it’s person even then, tough guy.

              A mamma Grizzly would most likely disagree with you, Epi, and lop off your head to prove it.

              1. What the hell does a bear have to do with this? Other than that Tulpa likes to go to his furry orgies as one.

                1. was this his date?


              2. All right OM, you don’t need to go all Palin on us.

            3. Huh? A blank slate? There is no difference between a child a few seconds before he/she leaves the birth canal and few seconds after, except location.

              Otherwise, the child has the same brainwaves and such that make him/her a human being.

              Are you really using the real estate argument to assert that the one human being owns another and can dispose of as the human with power sees fit?

              1. I believe he’s saying that he approves of infanticide.

          2. I only see 3 reasonable lines of demarcation and birth aint one of them:

            1. Conception
            2. Algebra (shout out to PKD)
            3. Start of brain activity

            Well, there is a fourth, which we can thank Marshall for bringing up during the Roe v Wade case – he asked when the soul enters the body.

            If anyone has an answer to that, I would go with it.

            If we went with #3, everyone could be unhappy about the result.

            1. Non-interventionist viability. Once the fetus can survive on it’s own, it gains defensible rights. Solves late-term abortion while giving a window of time that the activity of neurons don’t. (Neurogenesis has been shown to start at 6 weeks.)

              Or, you know, people start using birth control.

              1. Viability keeps getting earlier and earlier, but I guess it depends on what you mean by non-interventionist. As an extreme view, it takes us back to algebra.

              2. Solves late-term abortion while giving a window of time that the activity of neurons don’t.

                Sure it does. 6 weeks is a “window of time”.

                1. Many women with erratic periods don’t even know they are pregnant until two skipped periods, which could be as long as 10 weeks. This is even more likely with an unplanned pregnancy.

                  1. If you have an erratic period, you might want to consider using birth control, as you suggest. Or you know, if you had sex in the last month, take a home pregnancy test.

                  2. Many women with erratic periods don’t even know they are pregnant until two skipped periods, which could be as long as 10 weeks. This is even more likely with an unplanned pregnancy.

                    And that’s the developing baby’s fault? Or is it just the one who bears the consequences?

                    Sure it does. 6 weeks is a “window of time”.

                    I tend to agree here, just not too sure about the exact time frame. “Brain activity” is a pretty broad thing. I’d be more inclined to place it at brain and heart development (i.e. when actual brain and heart cells are formed). That to me is when a human becomes a human as opposed to just a group of cells. Anyone know when this happens in human development, because that’s when I think abortion should be outlawed.

                    1. Mayo Clinic site says it happens in week 5. So, IMHO, abortion should happen before the fifth week. Anything after that is killing a developing human being.

                1. Interesting. Pot works on your brain to make you happy and relaxed. No wonder they want to keep the ban on the demon weed. Unhappy and anxious is the mood of the average likely voter.

                  1. I found it interesting that all the other common drugs decrease hippocampus neurogenesis: Chronic administration of the major drugs of abuse including opiates, alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine has been reported to suppress hippocampal neurogenesis in adult rats

              3. I believe that life begins with conception, but I don’t think the law should read that way.

                I agree with you, SFree- let’s go with the medical evidence, and I think yours is a valid demarcation point.

                1. I dont see why “non-interventionist” viability would be valid.

                  Brain activity seems very valid, since its a standard we often use at end of life too.

                  1. Yeah. If we think life is gone without the brain activity is seems pretty consistent to believe it has arrived with the brain activity.

                  2. Brain activity seems very valid, since its a standard we often use at end of life too.

                    And if you pass $100 to the tech doing the brain scan, he can make sure it comes up negative so you can have your dead embryo stew.

                2. “Viability” is not a demarcation point at all. It means different things to different people and would almost certainly have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which would make a mockery of equal justice under the law.

                  You wouldn’t support a law that restricted the right to vote to “people who are capable of making a good voting decision”, yet you feel perfectly fine about restricting the right not to be killed to an even more vague and abuse-prone criterion.

              4. Non-interventionist viability. Once the fetus can survive on it’s own, it gains defensible rights.

                A newborn can’t survive without intervention, either. Indeed, anytime below age 7 or so is probably going to fail that criterion if it’s applied objectively (as opposed to being used as a rationalization for whatever abortion policy you wanted to begin with).

            2. 4 and half months. I made up my own religion, and in my religion a fetus transubstantiates into a small human at exactly 4.5 months. And anybody who disagrees with me in either direction is a heathen and will spend eternity looking at power point slides with a pointy haired boss.

        3. Re: Episiarch,

          Yeah, because a group of cells is a person.

          Epi, each and every person is a “group of cells.” The difference is in the number of them.

          Next argument?

          1. Baloney. Every person is a group of cells; not every group of cells is a person. A dead body is a group of cells. A tumor is a group of cells. The hive mind of Gamma Seven is a group of cells, and that’s not a person.

            Try again.

            1. Re: Episiarch,

              Baloney. Every person is a group of cells; not every group of cells is a person.

              Agreed but that is NOT what you argued:

              “Yeah, because a group of cells is a person.”

              Even though you’re trying to be ironic, you’re still not making the case for abortion under the argument that a fetus is “just a group of cells” as it is clear a person is ALSO “just a group of cells.”

              And there are groups of cells that are birds or cats or dogs, indeed not persons. The fact that “not all groups of cells are persons” in itself is not an argument for the validity of abortion.

    2. Hell, pet-owners think their friggin’ dogs and hamsters have rights. As a culture, we’ve never been more clueless regarding the concept of rights. We’re devolving.

      1. I have a friend who’s in the middle of a divorce and they have visitation rights for their fucking CHIHUAHUAS. Pretending that dogs are children is bad enough, but chihuahuas???

        1. Pretending chihuahuas are dogs is pretty bad itself.

          Speaking of pronunciation (like I did below), I go with the Les Nesman pronunciation of the rat-dog.

          1. Also with Chi Chi Rodriguez.

        2. There’s a battle for custody of the dog in the movie The Awful Truth — which dates to 1937.

      2. I was accused of being a Republican by a date about a month ago because I expressed the opinion that animals don’t have rights. We then went on to discuss how she couldn’t bear to date a smoker, and weren’t they evil people. The fact that I quit a year ago and refused to denounce my former comrades confused her. She was not nearly hot enough to be that crazy.

        1. Always stay above the Hot/Crazy line.

          1. Yes. The moment I discovered I was on the wrong side, it became a last date.

    3. Lefties have given up trying to convince people that abortion in all cases is correct. Now they seem to just be focused on the more winning message that Republicans want to let rapists have kids willy nilly.

  4. I think you needed to repeat that you wouldn’t vote for Angle at least twice more, to ensure that the invitation to the next cosmotarian cocktail party won’t be rescinded.

    You can’t allow anyone to have doubts, and think you would actually vote in a way that was likely to remove such a disgusting character as Reid from a position of power if it meant getting teabag residue on The Jacket.

    1. Does the LP have a candidate on the ballot?

      1. Does it matter?

        1. If the options were Reid/Angle v Reid/Angle/LP, yes it might. Im not a non-voter, I would vote for Angle is a heads up race, but would have to consider the LP candidate in a 3 way race.

          1. I was seriously considering voting R for the first time in my life in my state’s tight gubernatorial race. The R is decent. But then I learned there’s an LP candidate.
            So I’m voting LP.
            Just ’cause I hate Tulpa.

            1. Hate is an ugly thing, CN. Even uglier than my colonoscopy video, I’ll wager.

              1. But it’s all that’s keeping me sane.

    2. Nick, pulling the covers over your head and trembling in fear of the imaginary boogeyman under your bed will do nothing, notta, zip, zero, to stop the burglar in your house stealing your possessions at gun point.

  5. Wait, isn’t Reid also pro-life?

  6. All of these negative campaign ads here in Colorady sure have sharpened the reflexes of my Mute Finger.

  7. short of how she misspells her own damn name!

    Ive been pronouncing it in my head likes it spelled. I dont watch news, so I havent heard anyone say it. Is it prounounced “angel”. Cause I dont think my brain will change to that.

    1. Pretty sure he’s talkin about the two N’s in her first name.

    2. Me too. I really hate stupidly spelled names. Sharrrron can be pronounced with a festive pirate-y flair, though, so that’s something.

      1. Please don’t get them started on the pirate talk thing again. Didn’t we get enough a few weeks back?

        1. Fair enough. Sharr?n to rhyme with Patr?n? That one is a stretch if you’re looking for a Halloween costume.

          1. Already got my costume. I’m just gonna dress up as a priest and take my kids around on a leash.

            Although my kids want to dress up as the douche and turd sandwich from South Park in honor of the election season. Seriously.

  8. I think it’s more like 11.68%.

    1. 10.75%

      12.4/115.3, and of course this percent changes if your are over the SS limit.

      1. Could be.

        If X is your current salary and Y is 6.2% of X, isn’t the calculation going to be (X + Y) / 2Y … as long as Y is under the cap, of course?

        If the law changed and the employer had to pay you that extra 6.2% but you were wholly responsible for the 12.4% it looks like the formula above would be accurate. No? I haven’t had to be especially mathy since my sophomore year of college so I freely admit I may not be seeing things accurately.

  9. SEIU- protecting America from shadowy billionaires and their minions.

  10. And Nick’s cred as disdainful douche is secure with his unwillingness to vote Angle if he had the opportunity. Hey, why try to go in the right direction when you could feel really smart about yourself?

    1. Oh, what would we do without the chorus of HitAndRunpublicans to excoriate us for not going with TEAM RED, because, you know, uh, well, look over there, TEAM BLUE!!!

      1. HitAndRunpublicans — I like it. Do you suppose they’ll all disappear when Team Red gains power and stays the course, as, of course, Team Red will do?

        1. They were around defending Bush before team blue took over, so I dont see them pulling a joe.

        2. Give the credit to NutraSweet, as HitAndRunpublican is his invention.

          And no, they won’t disappear; they were here during the Bush years, weren’t they? After all, they know TEAM RED will fuck up royally right away, TEAM BLUE will get back in, and then they get to bitch and try and get us to vote for them again. It’s their cycle and they like it.

          1. Epi, you forgot to mention how Team Blue fucks up when they have all the power. Up-fucking is not solely at Team Red character trait/legislative agenda.

            1. It’s a teeter-totter of shitty options. A lot of people are choosing to just jump off rather than wobble in the middle.

              1. I’ll be on the merry-go-round if you need me.

                1. Unfortunately, we’re stuck on the slide.

              2. A lot of people are choosing to just jump off rather than wobble in the middle.

                Short of emigrating from the US, you can’t jump off. Choosing not to vote certainly does not entail jumping off.

                1. I hope SF means jumping off the two options they have been mostly forced to accept for quite a while. Team Red up-Team Blue down. Team Blue up-Team Red down. That’s what people are jumping off of (at least the way I read SF’s post).

                  1. Angle is a better RED than many. You’re being stupid.

  11. It’s the stupid season again for television ads. From what I’ve seen, this season is the stupidest yet.

    Reason could run critiques on outrageous, hyperbolic, defamatory and just plain fucking stupid 2010 political ads daily and they wouldn’t clean out the backlog till 2012.

    I am sadly aware that many Americans are swayed by these perversions of the esteemed art of advertising, reinforcing my considered opinion that Americans are too damn stupid to govern themselves.

  12. It’s the stupid season for political ads and this one is the stupidest yet.

    Reason could run critiques on hyperbolic, defamatory, disingenuous and just plain bullshit 2010 campaign ads daily and wouldn’t clear out the backlog until late 2012.

    I am sadly aware that a significant portion of the electorate are swayed by these embarrassments to the fine art of advertising reinforcing my considered opinion that the American people are too stupid or too lazy to govern themselves.

    1. Its been covered here some, but the Conway ads against Paul have been amazing in their spectacufaility.

      1. Oh, Conway went so far that it looks like his party’s writing him off. Chris Matthews even called him on his BS, and there’s no way Matthews would do that to a democrat unless the Powers that Be told him to.


  13. I still get flagged as spam when I use my regular E-mail address. Mailing me at this one might go a month before being read.

  14. Can we get a “Hot Fuzz” reference in here? When I read her last name, its the first thing I think of..

    1. P.I. Staker, right? Piss Taker? Come on!

  15. After all, they know TEAM RED will fuck up royally right away

    TEAM BLUE woulda bin worse!!

  16. If she was raped – and got pregnant – Angle would force her to have the baby

    Sharon Angle advocates Rape Rooms!

    1. Who knew Angle was running for SCOTUS where her opinion might make an iota of difference on that issue?

  17. I wonder if SEIU gets the implication it makes that women would be helpless without the gubmint to take care of them.

    I guess it does, since it seems to feel the same way about everyone…

  18. BTW, why does the SEIU still exist? Hasn’t that organization been bankrupted by the punitive damage they’ve had to pay out to Kenneth Gladney for beating him up?

    Oh, I forgot. We have a legal system, not a justice system.


  19. I do like how SEIU is being so upfront about the fact that Social Security is basically a transfer payment from men to women.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.