Angle must be careful that political makeover doesn’t go too far
You said you wanted a revolution, but are you comfortable with the revolutionary?
That's the question facing Republicans as they try to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. Their Tea Party Minutewoman, Sharron Angle, is anything but a squishy Republican in Name Only or a cosmetically enhanced conservative. She's a social conservative and a libertarian true believer. She knows her Constitution and, until recently, had made clear her positions on the federal government and its programs.
To put it politely, she's not a fan.
While Angle's rhetoric doesn't play well outside the American West, and provides endless grist for newspaper editorial pages -- look no further than a recent edition of The New York Times -- it found a willing audience in Nevada in the GOP primary. The state's Republican Party appears to have fully embraced the national GOP's hard-right conservative mantra. Politically speaking, that's where Angle lives.
Her statements are easy to lampoon, but they're really just conservative talking points. Early in his career, Sen. John Ensign often spoke of privatizing Social Security and eliminating the Department of Education. It's one of those stories Gingrich conservatives like to tell themselves and their constituents at bedtime.
It's nothing new. Angle's blunt language and candor have been refreshing -- if at times a little eyebrow raising. Until recently, we've known right where she's stood because she's made her beliefs clear.
Lately she's been busy attempting to soften some of her previous statements on axing Social Security, eliminating the departments of Education and Energy, and using "Second Amendment remedies" to tame the federal government if the ballot box is unsuccessful. Frankly, this script rewriting has a big downside.
Reid's camp is spending a boatload of campaign funds on commercials that quote some of her public remarks, but recrafting images and positions can be dangerous chemistry. Now that Angle is surrounded by a new team of campaign experts, the temptation will be to make her sound political instead of plainspoken. But she must be careful not to be too careful.
When you've gone out of your way to criticize Social Security, as Angle has, it leaves you little wiggle room to redraft your rhetoric. And it's awfully late to start trying.
Take this comment on KNPR a few weeks ago: "Well it's very difficult to justify Social Security. As you know. FDR put it in as an insurance policy for those who were needy. My grandfather would not even take his Social Security check because he said he was not up for welfare, he had planned for his retirement, and he wouldn't take it. But, since then we have gotten into this whole mindset that it's an entitlement."
And there's, "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized."
Is that outrageous, or just a real conservative stating her philosophy?
With Reid's team using those and other statements to raise questions about Angle's "radical worldview," her campaign has taken to softening the positions she's held for years. That's how "eliminating" and "privatizing" Social Security has morphed into "personalizing" a program that isn't now and never has been a "welfare" entitlement.
The candidate transformation might turn out to be good politics, but I think it's dangerous for her new team to soften Angle's firebrand side too much. If she appears to distance herself from her long-held libertarian stances in an attempt at a political makeover, she'll be setting herself up as a flip-flopper. (If you don't think that's a fatal malady, ask John Kerry.)
Republicans voted for Angle in the primary because they appreciated her plainspoken sincerity. They didn't vote for Sue Lowden in sensible shoes.
You said you wanted a revolution?
I'm beginning to wonder if you really do.
John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.
