Behold the new Harry Reid campaign ad, narrated by a jobless Nevadan and featuring comments Sharron Angle made about jobs and unemployment benefits. It goes live on the Nevada airwaves today:

Angle did say in late June, in an answer to a question about whether she would have voted to extend unemployment benefits on Jon Ralston’s television program Face to Face, that she would have “voted no because the truth about it is that they keep extending these unemployment benefits to the point where people are afraid to go out and get a job because the job doesn’t pay as much as the unemployment benefit does.” Here’s the rest of that exchange, prompted by an earlier Angle statement in which she said we have “spoiled our citizenry”:

RALSTON: So you’re saying that these tens of thousands of Nevadans they’re sitting on their couches they’re all spoiled. They don’t want to go out and get a job. I’m gonna cut off your benefits. That’s your attitude.
ANGLE: Oh now come on Jon.
RALSTON: Spoiled! But you said they’re spoiled.
ANGLE: Well I said that it had spoiled our citizenry. That’s a little different. They’re not spoiled. What has happened is the system of entitlement has caused us to have a spoilage with our um, ability to go out and get a job.
[Face to Face, 6/29/10]

Here’s the interview with Ralston which includes the exchange as well as a clip of her original “spoiled” remark:

Angle did later apologize for calling the unemployed “spoiled” in a July interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board, adding that she believes extending jobless benefits doesn’t solve any problems. Her proposed solutions were to pay partial benefits to those who accept low-paying jobs and cut taxes in order to encourage companies to invest capital and hire workers.

The new Reid ad is part of the “Sharron-Angle-Is-Too-Extreme” campaign, which this week includes a press release attacking her positions on aid to BP oil spill and Hurricane Katrina victims. Here’s a clip from yesterday’s missive by Reid spokesman Kelly Steele:

During her 2006 failed bid for Congress, Angle callously stated that she would have opposed the $62 billion in federal emergency assistance for Katrina victims. Angle’s rhetoric on Katrina aid closely matches that of her recent statements that $20 billion in relief funds from BP constituted a ‘slush fund,’ and that – despite the widespread human suffering involved – she would oppose such aid on the flimsy basis of not knowing how every single allocated dollar would be spent.

The press release goes on to say that the Senate vote for aid was a unanimous 97-0, which means Angle “would have been the only U.S. Senator to oppose relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.”

Here’s what Angle actually said about Katrina relief and her explanation for why she would have voted no (emphasis mine):

I think that government needs to live within its means. I would like to go and join my voice with Mike Pence and others who when the $62 billion came out to be spent on Katrina relief, he said wait a minute, I’m voting no and the reason is because I want to know where it’s going, what it’s going to be spent on and who is going to be spending it, so I’d like to join my voice there.