This post originally appeared on the Washington Monthly
The New York Times
has an item
today about Sharron Angle, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, and the lengths she'll go to avoid answering journalists' questions about her positions on issues. In one of the more notorious instances, Angle literally fled when a reporter asked about comments she made about an armed uprising against the United States.
The piece didn't necessarily draw any conclusions -- neither the candidate nor her campaign aides responded to inquiries; imagine that -- but Republican officials claim Angle will eventually get around to responding to questions.
That's something to look forward to. One of the newer questions is why Angle wants to deregulate the mining industry
, given the recent Massey Energy disaster in West Virginia.
On May 26, a few weeks after BP's oil disaster began, U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) told a local media outlet that her solution to America's energy policy would be to "deregulate" the oil industry. While both conservatives and liberals agree that this catastrophe could have been prevented if BP had invested more in safety and if regulators had been more attentive, few, if any, have taken the extreme view at there is actually too much regulation on the oil industry.
However, last Wednesday, while appearing on the hate-filled website ResistNet's Internet radio station, Angle reiterated her position and explained that if elected, she would ensure that "government isn't over-regulating" the "oil and petroleum industry," as well as the "mining industry." Angle appeared to attack her opponent, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), for supporting the Mining in the Parks Act, a law that prohibits mining in National Parks.
I realize that "regulation" is necessarily an offensive word to the far-right, but this really is crazy. Angle sees the BP oil spill disaster, which could have been prevented through regulation, and calls for deregulation. Angle sees the tragedy at Montcoal
, which could have been prevented through regulation, and calls for deregulation.
Who are the voters who'll find this even remotely persuasive?