Angle says she wouldn’t support health care for pregnant women because she isn’t going to have any more children herself. Two things come to mind with this ad. Did she have children and receive prenatal care covered by insurance? And then, the kicker, with her penchant for the word “no,” how did she ever have children in the first place? I was just wondering.
She says her job as a United States senator is not to create jobs yet she dings Sen. Harry Reid for not getting job opportunities for people in Nevada during his tenure in office. Huh? Am I hearing that right or do I have terminal wax in my ears?
Over his tenure in office as a senator from Nevada, Reid has either directly or indirectly been responsible for the creation of hundreds if not thousands of jobs for Nevadans. Those workers take their paychecks and spread the wealth all over the state and then some. I’m sure Reid created these jobs proudly and considers job creation to be a big part of his responsibilities as a United States senator from Nevada. Obviously, Angle, by not understanding that part of her job as a senator would be to see that jobs are generated for the citizens of Nevada, would not be pursuing this facet of the job with any zeal whatsoever.
She says Reid voted to give Viagra to sex offenders. If you believe that I’ve got a boat load of little green men ready to do toe taps on your head. I do believe there may have been a bill passed in the Senate that included a medical formulary program that covered sex offenders and it also just happened to include the drug Viagra. I don’t think the intent of Reid’s vote on that bill was to fan the sexual flames of sex offenders. What kind of soft-in-the-head imbeciles does Angle think comprise the Nevada voter base? I take that ad as a real insult to my intelligence and an insult to Sen. Reid as well.
I could discuss the line of B.S. (basic stuff) as it stretches for miles on both sides of this campaign, but what I’d like to know is who are the people in all of the political action committees? Where are they from and who is giving how much money? Under United States election law, neither candidate is allowed to find out or ask who these people are. The candidates can, of course, know who is supporting their ads that their campaign is paying for out of their individual war chests, but both sides are prohibited from finding out the makeup of the political action committees not directly attached to their own campaign.
When all the dust has settled from this election season, I would like to see a major reform of our election procedures. First, the campaign season should be shortened. Six weeks sounds real good. If you can’t throw all your mud or get your message out in that length of time, too bad.
Second, a limit would be set as to how much money can be spent on any campaign advertising of any kind. This would apply to all parties.
Third, every contributor to any campaign must be identified by name, not affiliation. Every member of a political action committee must be identified by name. It is absolutely ludicrous to spend enough money on any campaign that the total amount would pay half the national debt and then some.
The old days of taking a guy to a saloon and getting him drunk and then taking him to vote almost would be preferable to the lunacy of our current campaign methods.
Larry Wilson is a 50-year resident of Sparks and a retired elementary school teacher. You can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.