By Dave Andrusko

Pro-Life Republican challenger Sharron Angle and pro-abortion incumbent Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nv.)

God bless C-SPAN for its oft-time indispensable programming. C-SPAN is airing a number of debates among candidate for office, and last night it beamed the match-up of pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and pro-life Sharron Angle (R). I did not know in advance, so I only saw part of the exchange. However, between that and what today's coverage provides, I think you can draw a few important conclusions.

First, with a few notable exceptions, the "mainstream media" wants Angle to lose in the worst way--pun intended. Reporters will stop at nothing to deride, mock, and ridicule Angle, even though it's obvious from the way they treat Reid they believe he passed his prime several decades ago.

But, demeaning slurs aside, most accounts conceded that Angle at least held her own in the hour-long debate. While some headlines maintained that the debate changed nothing, other headlines were more perceptive.

One read, "Reid lost the debate to Angle," another said, "Reid put on defensive by Angle in debate," while a third--a post on the Las Vegas Review-Journal blog--concluded, "Angle mops the floor with Reid."

Those who really despise Angle were bitterly angry that Reid hadn't dispatched her. Jon Ralston was so annoyed he asked, "But did he take himself out, once and for all, with his dismissiveness, his sarcastic and loopy use of 'my friend' and Senatese, his shifting of subjects in the middle of thoughts, beginning with his opening statements?"

Second, everyone knows that it is an adventure when Reid is asked to speak extemporaneously. His mind is like a file cabinet with a hundred separate drawers piled high with canned answers. Forced to answer even the most basic question, it's as if that file cabinet falls over, the answers tumble out, and his response is whatever papers land on top. It was not an edifying sight to listen to him expound.

Third, we know that ObamaCare is rife with provisions that will result in massive federal subsidies for abortion. Pro-abortionists respond with an assortment of answers, ranging from the non-sensical to the non-sequitor . One reliable (because it is totally irrelevant) come back is to invoke the Hyde Amendment, which has nothing to do with ObamaCare.

Here's what T. A. Frank, writing at the New Republic, says about the question regarding abortion and ObamaCare:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fox [the moderator] asked the candidates whether they favored having the federal government fund abortions under the new health care law. Yes or no?

ANGLE: No.

REID: Well, we passed--maintained--Hyde, Hyde Amendment.

MODERATOR: That would be a yes or no?

REID: [pause] Uh, under the law, eh, that exists today, the Hyde amendment, which has been the law in this country for 30 years, is still there.

Point, set, match.

Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.