My "angle" on Angle...

... to carry the pun further...

A fair question, so I'll do my best to give a fair answer.

Were the ad about the dangers associated with the gang Mara Salvatrucha and all its violent, illegal activity, I'd say that the ad was topical and appropriate, but the reason for the ad was not to raise awareness of illegal street gangs and their activities in the streets of America. Your previous post makes a solid point in my case...

You made the assumption (based on only two viewings, according to your own words) that the tattooed thugs in the ad were Mexicans affiliated with a violent street gang, and you are familiar with the dangers to innocents and neighborhoods that are menaced by the Mara Salvatrucha gang in the American southwest. As has been brought up before (by members of the View, no less), Nevada has a full 28% of its voting population claiming Hispanic heritage, and 80% of those Hispanics claim Mexican roots.

MS-13 is an exclusively Salvadoran (meaning from San Salvador) gang, and it has been shown that the deportation of members when arrested here in the US has directly contributed to the spread of the gang across the Central American landscape (source HERE). The gang was formed to counter and combat "Mexican" gangs that had already existed in the US and elsewhere since the 1950's. In short, it is NOT a "Mexican" gang, and the men in the ad were reinforcing stereotypes that do no justice to ANY demographic in the American society at large. I'm NOT saying Ryan is wrong... only that Ryan's stated conclusions are evidence that the message the ad is sending is NOT clear, and that this lack of clarity does the conservative message no service if it cannot bring the focus of the voters onto a single, measurable issue.

Were I to have been an advisor to Ms. Angle, I'd have said that the best images to associate with the dangers of an open, unprotected border are images of the human trafficking tragedies that are discovered on an almost daily basis, the drug smuggling and drug-related violence, the fact that this sort of activity chokes our legal system with an additional 30% of arrests, cases and incarcerations in most of the border states, and the cost (to both those crossing illegally and the communities they are crossing into) associated with such a loosely-controlled frontier.

Now, this has all the potential to blow up as another "Titus is being contrary" pissing match, and it doesn't need to be that. I don't live in a border state, and I don't live with the level of pressure here in PA that states like AZ, NV, TX or NM must be living with when it comes to this particular issue... so if Angle's ad is targeted to people (and voters) who DO feel it is a crisis issue, then it is good enough for me and her supporters that she chose to run it. My point was (and remains) that... actions and words used on the View to describe Angle not withstanding... the ad has the potential to detract from the greater message that Angle is trying to make, especially to the majority of the 28% of Hispanic voters in Nevada: the liberal/progressive agenda of the DNC has FAILED, and the GOP/Tea Party message needs to be given a chance.

I can't say this enough... if Angle thinks that illegal immigration is the sort of topic or issue that her election is going to ride on, then the ad could stand as is and serve her well. She has a far better finger on the pulse of NV than I do, and so does Ryan... and that is where the votes will be coming from. NOT from northeastern Pennsylvania. I have simply seen too many "fear ads" in the past backfire with such spectacular effect that seeing one now, in as important an election cycle as this is, gives me pause. I simply feel that the vast arrays of topics and issues that this election is going to address deserves every ounce of attention, and anything that might detract from that is a bad thing.