On October 10, 2010, the Las Vegas Sun formally endorsed Harry Reid and today that same paper headlines with "Reid lost the debate to Angle."In their original endorsement they portrayed Sharron Angle as extreme as Harry Reid's attack ads have been doing consistently, but last night the two candidates each had a specific goal.
Reid's goal was to give Nevada voters a reason to reelect him and Angle's goal was to show she was not the lunatic Reid portrayed her to be and was not extreme.
Reid failed his goal and Angle succeeded in hers.
Las Vegas Sun:
Let’s get the easy part out of the way first:
Sharron Angle won The Big Debate.
Angle won because she looked relatively credible, appearing not to be the Wicked Witch of the West (Christine O’Donnell is the good witch of the Tea Party) and scoring many more rhetorical points. And she won because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked as if he could barely stay on a linear argument, abruptly switching gears and failing to effectively parry or thrust.
The LA Times' Top of the Ticket has an excellent topic-by-topic recap for readers.
Sherman Frederick writes for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which endorsed Sharron Angle and headlines today with "Angle mops the floor with Reid."
While both candidates -- Sharron Angle and Harry Reid -- started out slow and tight in their debate this evening, by debate close it was clear: Angle mopped the floor with Reid.
She hit hard on a variety of topics; showed she had the fire to be a U.S. Senator; demonstrated a command of the issues; and, of course, stayed gaffe free.
Reid meanwhile looked tired. Sounded entitled. He mixed up the Department of Education with the Department of Energy. Couldn't find his notes for the close and generally fell back on talking points on far too many questions.
The New Republic, never a bastion of conservative thought, headlines with "Reid My Lips: Last Night Was a Disaster," sub header "The Senate majority leader should've stayed home. "
Why Harry Reid agreed to have a debate with Sharron Angle is a bit of a mystery to me. If your campaign is based on portraying your opponent as loony, then why give that opponent a chance to look reasonable? Lyndon Johnson never debated Barry Goldwater. Then again, I’m no political strategist. And neither, I’ve come to see, is Harry Reid. So let’s focus on what matters now: that a debate was held in Nevada last night between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle. And its upshot was—sorry, folks—that Angle improved her chances.
I’m not suggesting that Sharron Angle, having been granted the opportunity to look reasonable, looked reasonable. On the contrary, she was very much herself—smiling maniacally in her crimson suit and hurling out bizarre fictions. But she looked reasonable enough. Lies about policy don’t really hurt you in a debate, especially when they’re voiced with conviction. What hurts you is looking evasive and squishy. Sharron Angle provided the lies. Harry Reid provided the squish.
Both Ralston at Las Vegas Sun and Frank at the New Republic, both show disdain for Angle in every word, yet both feel compelled to admit Sharron Angle came out ahead.
If even those that despise Angle admit, grudgingly, that she tore up Reid, then we can bet she helped herself and hurt Harry Reid in last night's debate.
More on what headlines are saying and go visit Angles countdown to victory blog.
You go Girl!!!!
(Photo credit- Newser)
.
