In the span of a year, Nevada voters have encountered three different Sharron Angles.
First came Primary Campaign Angle, who, trying to distinguish herself from a crowded Republican U.S. Senate field, talked to anyone, anywhere and was unafraid to declare her deeply conservative philosophy.
Then she won the primary and voters met Down-in-the-Bunker Angle, who fled reporters and hunkered down to raise money.
Now emerges Prime Time Angle. Bolstered by a professional communications staff, she is once again sparring with groups of reporters and granting lengthy sit-down interviews to “mainstream” news outlets such as The New York Times. But the latest edition, while more polished, appears to be missing some of her previous fire, if her speech Wednesday before the Washoe County Republican Women’s Club is any indication.
She's certainly trying hard to make us forget everything she said earlier this year.
Instead of calling for the elimination of departments she sees as running up the federal debt and burdening businesses with regulation and taxes, Angle now merely wants to trim the budgets of the Education and Energy departments and Environmental Protection Agency.
Although Angle previously said she wants to eliminate Social Security for new generations of workers, she now says younger workers should be given the option of the traditional program or personal, government-run retirement accounts.
Sharron Angle claims she's just changed her "language"... But take another listen to what's she's said and ask if this is just "changing language".
And what kind of language is this? Does she still stand by her comments that she's "not in the business of creating jobs" and we're "spoiling our citizenry" by helping the unemployed while they're finding jobs?
And does she still think The Las Vegas Strip is like The Titanic and that CityCenter should have been allowed to fail and tens of thousands more casino workers should have been allowed to join the already large ranks of the unemployed?
I occasionally hear from the teabaggers that we should choose Sharron Angle because we need "change" and "new ideas". But if Angle's "ideas" are so great, why doesn't she run on her original "ideas" from her original campaign in the primary? Is it perhaps because her DC Republican handlers realize most Nevadans reject her extremism? Is it perhaps because they know her "great ideas" have already been tried and failed?