Here is an interesting set of polls from a while back, with an obvious discrepancy between the initial findings and the follow up:
Do you personally think you would watch the televised coverage of
the US Senate if it were available to you, or not?Question: Yes 72% No 26% Don’t know %2
(Source: Survey by the Associated Press/Media General, April 3-11, 1986.)
A few months later...
As you may know, the US Senate began televising its sessions on June 2.
Have you yourself watched part of any of those sessions on TV since then?
No, did not
watch 79%
Yes, watched
20%
Can’t get them on my TV (vol.) 1%
(Source: Survey by the ABC News/Washington Post, June 19-24, 1986.)
Although the initial findings suggested that there was an overwhelming interest in watching the Senate on TV, this does not seem to have corresponded to the actual viewership once the Senate was actually televised. Many factors may have contributed to this inconsistency:
1. Respondents may have interpreted the question as a vote on whether Senate sessions should be televised. The question may have been understood as "Should one be able to watch the senate in session?" to which many responded positively.
2.Respondents may have felt that saying they would watch the senate was the "right answer". Since citizens should want to watch the Senate, they reasoned, we should say we want to watch the senate.
3. The subject of televised senate sessions may have been receiving much attention in the media at the time, artificially creating an interest in watching the Senate. Since this did not reflect actual interest, the percentage actually watching was significantly lower.
4. The question presented the allure of something which is out of reach. Human psychology dictates that one desires something more if he cannot have it. Once Senate viewing was actually available, interest dropped because of the very fact that it was now available.
This poll shows the difficulty of accurately determining public interest and should serve as a reminder against over-reliance on public opinion surveys, without proper analysis.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Sunday, October 29, 2006
This about the RNC ad by Peggy Noonan, a conservative critic of the administration:
"The administration tries to get around this, to quiet the unease, with things like the Republican National Committee ad in which Islamic terrorists plot to kill America.
They do want to kill America, and all the grownups know it. But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout. Turnout's the key.
Here's a thing about American politics. Nobody sees himself as the base. They see themselves as individuals. And they're not dumb. They get it all. They know when you're trying to manipulate. They'll even tell you, with a lovely detachment, if you're doing a good job. (An unreported story this year is the lack of imagination, seriousness and respect in the work of political consultants on both sides. They have got to catch up with American brightness.) "
In other words, Noonan is saying, the times have changed. You can't still use Lyndon Johnson's campaign tactics. This brings to mind Andrew Ferguson's classic piece from the 2004 election season. Some highlights:
On January 15,1992, during a gruesome New Hampshire "town meeting" at the dawn of his reelection campaign, the first President Bush struggled heroically, and in the end famously, to get a point across to an indifferent audience in Exeter. His political consultants in Washington had prepared him for a bad reception: Focus groups were united in seeing their president, in those recessionary days, as out of touch and uncaring. The political purpose of his trip to New Hampshire was to dispel the notion.
President Bush opened the town meeting like so: "One of the things that I'm pleased to be able to do here is to at least let the people of this state know that even though I am president and do have two or three other responsibilities, that when people are hurting, we care."
A moment later: "Of course, we care."
A moment more: "And of course, we care."
It wasn't working. The questions became increasingly hostile.
And so: "I'll take my share of the blame. I don't take it for not caring."
And again: "I do care about it. I just wanted to say that."
"Two things. One, I know you're hurting; two, I care about it."
Still nothing, until, in his frustration with yet another unfriendly question, he let go finally, desperately, deathlessly. "But," he said, "the message: I care."
The veil slipped, the curtain was pulled back, the politician stood exposed. It was as though a magician had invited us backstage to watch as he stuffed the pigeons up his sleeve. Political commentators (not nearly so numerous in that innocent era) noted the oddity. A politician describing his own "message"-the jig was up! It was thought to be inept at best, cynical at worst, artless in any case. "He blurted out his handlers' notes verbatim," said Newsweek, astonished. By the end of the month the New York Times and the Washington Post had printed the phrase more than a dozen times, and since then, in the annals of silly remarks, President Bush's self-referential declamation of his "message" has achieved second place only to Sally Fields's peerless outburst, "You like me, you really like me!"...
In retrospect it looks quaint; at the time it seemed genuinely transgressive, a real boner. Back then the word "message" still had the vaguely disreputable odor of the flack clinging to it. A politician wasn't supposed to self-consciously declare his "message," he was supposed to demonstrate it: make it come alive through indirection, by means of anecdotes or images or ideas, and persuade his audience of its plausibility. Then, suddenly, in 1992, here was the candidate just asserting it: You wanna message? Terrific. Here it is. Suck on it. In the normal transaction between speaker and hearer, persuader and persuaded, pol and voter, some crucial piece of connective tissue was being weirdly elided, in the best post-modern fashion.
Yet now, in the pomo primaries, the elision doesn't seem weird at all. In fact it's become customary for a presidential candidate to "get his message across" by simply announcing that he's getting his message across. Attending a rally for John Kerry, or watching one of his TV ads, or drifting through his website, a voter will hear the candidate say: "My message isn't for just part of America, it's for all of America-a message about how we're going to put Americans back to work." The voter will wait in vain for particulars, such as how this message is to be realized and Americans put back to work. (I do know it has something to do with raising taxes on rich people.) Nevertheless, when asked, the voter will tell an inquiring reporter that he "really likes Kerry's message about jobs." At a rally for John Edwards a few weeks ago, in South Carolina, I heard the comely Carolinian announce: "Let me tell you something. My message of hope and optimism is resonating all across America." And the crowd applauded! He might as well have hollered "applause line!" to receive the same reaction. "My message works," Edwards told an interviewer not long ago. "And it's going to continue to work." In South Carolina he said: "My message is optimism. My message is about hope." Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The medium isn't the message. The message is the message...The new self-consciousness did serve the salutary (and long overdue) goal of breaking down the division between journalist and voter; people who pay attention to pundits suddenly realized that anybody can be a pundit...
"The administration tries to get around this, to quiet the unease, with things like the Republican National Committee ad in which Islamic terrorists plot to kill America.
They do want to kill America, and all the grownups know it. But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout. Turnout's the key.
Here's a thing about American politics. Nobody sees himself as the base. They see themselves as individuals. And they're not dumb. They get it all. They know when you're trying to manipulate. They'll even tell you, with a lovely detachment, if you're doing a good job. (An unreported story this year is the lack of imagination, seriousness and respect in the work of political consultants on both sides. They have got to catch up with American brightness.) "
In other words, Noonan is saying, the times have changed. You can't still use Lyndon Johnson's campaign tactics. This brings to mind Andrew Ferguson's classic piece from the 2004 election season. Some highlights:
On January 15,1992, during a gruesome New Hampshire "town meeting" at the dawn of his reelection campaign, the first President Bush struggled heroically, and in the end famously, to get a point across to an indifferent audience in Exeter. His political consultants in Washington had prepared him for a bad reception: Focus groups were united in seeing their president, in those recessionary days, as out of touch and uncaring. The political purpose of his trip to New Hampshire was to dispel the notion.
President Bush opened the town meeting like so: "One of the things that I'm pleased to be able to do here is to at least let the people of this state know that even though I am president and do have two or three other responsibilities, that when people are hurting, we care."
A moment later: "Of course, we care."
A moment more: "And of course, we care."
It wasn't working. The questions became increasingly hostile.
And so: "I'll take my share of the blame. I don't take it for not caring."
And again: "I do care about it. I just wanted to say that."
"Two things. One, I know you're hurting; two, I care about it."
Still nothing, until, in his frustration with yet another unfriendly question, he let go finally, desperately, deathlessly. "But," he said, "the message: I care."
The veil slipped, the curtain was pulled back, the politician stood exposed. It was as though a magician had invited us backstage to watch as he stuffed the pigeons up his sleeve. Political commentators (not nearly so numerous in that innocent era) noted the oddity. A politician describing his own "message"-the jig was up! It was thought to be inept at best, cynical at worst, artless in any case. "He blurted out his handlers' notes verbatim," said Newsweek, astonished. By the end of the month the New York Times and the Washington Post had printed the phrase more than a dozen times, and since then, in the annals of silly remarks, President Bush's self-referential declamation of his "message" has achieved second place only to Sally Fields's peerless outburst, "You like me, you really like me!"...
In retrospect it looks quaint; at the time it seemed genuinely transgressive, a real boner. Back then the word "message" still had the vaguely disreputable odor of the flack clinging to it. A politician wasn't supposed to self-consciously declare his "message," he was supposed to demonstrate it: make it come alive through indirection, by means of anecdotes or images or ideas, and persuade his audience of its plausibility. Then, suddenly, in 1992, here was the candidate just asserting it: You wanna message? Terrific. Here it is. Suck on it. In the normal transaction between speaker and hearer, persuader and persuaded, pol and voter, some crucial piece of connective tissue was being weirdly elided, in the best post-modern fashion.
Yet now, in the pomo primaries, the elision doesn't seem weird at all. In fact it's become customary for a presidential candidate to "get his message across" by simply announcing that he's getting his message across. Attending a rally for John Kerry, or watching one of his TV ads, or drifting through his website, a voter will hear the candidate say: "My message isn't for just part of America, it's for all of America-a message about how we're going to put Americans back to work." The voter will wait in vain for particulars, such as how this message is to be realized and Americans put back to work. (I do know it has something to do with raising taxes on rich people.) Nevertheless, when asked, the voter will tell an inquiring reporter that he "really likes Kerry's message about jobs." At a rally for John Edwards a few weeks ago, in South Carolina, I heard the comely Carolinian announce: "Let me tell you something. My message of hope and optimism is resonating all across America." And the crowd applauded! He might as well have hollered "applause line!" to receive the same reaction. "My message works," Edwards told an interviewer not long ago. "And it's going to continue to work." In South Carolina he said: "My message is optimism. My message is about hope." Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The medium isn't the message. The message is the message...The new self-consciousness did serve the salutary (and long overdue) goal of breaking down the division between journalist and voter; people who pay attention to pundits suddenly realized that anybody can be a pundit...
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Edward S. Herman, author of "From Ingsoc and Newspeak to Amcap, Amerigood and Marketspeak", discusses how the United States is actually more proficient in using propaganda similar to those described in 1984 than both the Soviet Union and Ingsoc, intended as a satirizationin of the Soviet Union. Before packing and moving back to Russia, however, I decided to search Edward S. Herman on Google to gain background information in order to better understand his perspective. The second result was a page offering Herman's writings on the middle east. This essay entitled "Israel's Ethnic Cleansing" begins as follows: "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has always presented a moral problem to the West, as that treatment has violated every law and moral standard on the books." The continuation proved even more enlightening:
"The racist discrimination in pushing out Palestinians in favor of Jews is cruel, scandalous, and reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis (a comparison made often in the Israeli press, but not in the U.S. mainstream media). It was Nazi practice in occupied territories to dispossess the locals from homes to provide "lebensraum" for the "ubermenschen"... Shamir goes on to say that Israeli racism is "not less wide-spread and poisonous" than that of the German Nazis, citing a number of genocidal opinions of Russian-Israeli Jews and stating that today: "The Jewish state is the only place in the world possessing legitimate killer squads, embracing a policy of assassinations, and practicing torture on a medieval scale. But do not worry dear Jewish readers, we torture and assassinate Gentiles only."
In this light it is easier to understand how the United States=Soviet Union. If Jews=Nazis, the rest all follows rationally. In fact Herman's argument itself is reminiscent of the claims of Ingsoc in 1984. In other words, the irony is not that the United States is worse than a satire of a totalitarian regime, but that that a writer who claims to model himself after Orwell is more guilty of Newspeak than Big Brother.
Orwell's essay, meanwhile, is a thoughtful attack on the kind of stuff I'm about to write. But aside from arguing against cliched writing, he eloquently expresses his frustration with political writing. Political writing, for example, of the type that fills every page of every book every politician has ever written. His optimism is somewhat surprising, and unsurprisingly "political speech" has only expanded into more areas of life in the time that has gone by since Orwell wrote his essay. It has already become cliche to attack political correctness, so I will end merely by noting that it is broadly true that class-assignment writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line."
"The racist discrimination in pushing out Palestinians in favor of Jews is cruel, scandalous, and reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis (a comparison made often in the Israeli press, but not in the U.S. mainstream media). It was Nazi practice in occupied territories to dispossess the locals from homes to provide "lebensraum" for the "ubermenschen"... Shamir goes on to say that Israeli racism is "not less wide-spread and poisonous" than that of the German Nazis, citing a number of genocidal opinions of Russian-Israeli Jews and stating that today: "The Jewish state is the only place in the world possessing legitimate killer squads, embracing a policy of assassinations, and practicing torture on a medieval scale. But do not worry dear Jewish readers, we torture and assassinate Gentiles only."
In this light it is easier to understand how the United States=Soviet Union. If Jews=Nazis, the rest all follows rationally. In fact Herman's argument itself is reminiscent of the claims of Ingsoc in 1984. In other words, the irony is not that the United States is worse than a satire of a totalitarian regime, but that that a writer who claims to model himself after Orwell is more guilty of Newspeak than Big Brother.
Orwell's essay, meanwhile, is a thoughtful attack on the kind of stuff I'm about to write. But aside from arguing against cliched writing, he eloquently expresses his frustration with political writing. Political writing, for example, of the type that fills every page of every book every politician has ever written. His optimism is somewhat surprising, and unsurprisingly "political speech" has only expanded into more areas of life in the time that has gone by since Orwell wrote his essay. It has already become cliche to attack political correctness, so I will end merely by noting that it is broadly true that class-assignment writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line."
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Reflections on New Media and Old
These are turbulent times for those who seek to preserve the despotic reign of corporate-controlled media outlets from conquest by the insurgent blogosphere. The emergence of the blogosphere as a powerful force has old mainstream media struggling to keep up its ratings.
The distinguishing difference between the old and new media is that new media has no restrictions on what is "fit to print". Unlike old media there are no editors to please, and no accepted rules of etiquette to which one must conform. It is this very fact that makes it impossible to generalize accurately about blogs, and indeed blogs range greatly in content and style. Nonetheless, a writing form that thrives in the unfettered blog atmospere is the unrestrained rant. As an obviously-not-necessarily-representative example, I chose the following because it is not only passionate but also because it is an example of New Media's self-confidence in taking on an old media icon. From Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, editor of the liberal blog dailykos.com, about the long-standing liberal journal The New Republic:
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is racing to catch up with this phenomenon, which may be the source of blog popularity. The Wall Street Journal reports :
The distinguishing difference between the old and new media is that new media has no restrictions on what is "fit to print". Unlike old media there are no editors to please, and no accepted rules of etiquette to which one must conform. It is this very fact that makes it impossible to generalize accurately about blogs, and indeed blogs range greatly in content and style. Nonetheless, a writing form that thrives in the unfettered blog atmospere is the unrestrained rant. As an obviously-not-necessarily-representative example, I chose the following because it is not only passionate but also because it is an example of New Media's self-confidence in taking on an old media icon. From Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, editor of the liberal blog dailykos.com, about the long-standing liberal journal The New Republic:
This is not a judgement of Kos's grievances against the magazine. It is an observation on the level of passion in the argument, which I think is not usually found in the mainstream media."If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it
quits. If you see it in a magazine rack, you might as well move it behind the
National Review or even NewsMax, since that's who they want to be associated
with these days."Kos's attack on the New Republic however goes beyond their
specific policy differences (of which there are many). In his telling the New Republic is fighting back against the all powerful blogosphere:"It is now beyond clear that the dying New Republic is mortally wounded and cornered, desperate for relevance. It has lost half its circulation since the blogs arrived on the scene and they no longer (thank heavens!) have a monopoly on progressive punditry."
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is racing to catch up with this phenomenon, which may be the source of blog popularity. The Wall Street Journal reports :
"The proliferation of pundits in the last half-decade has been fueled by 24-hourAnd this:
cable news networks, which are built in part on the relatively cheap framework
of heated discussions. And as the rise of blogging has given anyone with an
opinion a public platform, more newcomers are joining the fray…
Mr. Kedrosky, 40, has learned to take clear positions. Many of his fellow [aspiring
pundits] have "too many hands," he says. "They're always saying, 'On the one
hand, on the other hand.' " As he sees it, punditry is "like pounding a volleyball back and forth. You just have to remember which side of the net you're on. If you all stand on the same side, you don't have a game."
"In the wake of North Korea's recent nuclear test, a hawkish Ms. Schlussel hit the radio circuit, saying U.S. officials responded too mildly in calling the test "a provocative act." "A Paris Hilton video is a provocative act," she said. "What North Korea did was an act of war." To get noticed, Ms. Schlussel says, "I've become the master of the confrontational sound bite."
Bloggers eager to get their message to a new audience combined with the demand for strong-minded, opinionated bloggers on mainstream media talkshows, has led to blogger seminars on how to best get their message across while on TV. The following is from National Review Online:
"And the guests those producers and bookers are looking for at the moment are…bloggers.“There’s a premium on bloggers now,” said Trainer 1. “There is a window following this conference to try to make yourselves available to the media…You are the new cool kids on the block, and you should leverage that now.” Near the end of the session, one woman said she doubted she could be effective on television, because her feelings about some political issues were just too passionate; she had once cursed at a reporter who asked her about Iraq. Passion is a good thing, her fellow bloggers told her. “I quit a tenure-track job because of political fights,” said one sympathetic teacher. Everyone agreed that the woman should speak out."
Monday, October 16, 2006
And You thought Katie Couric Was Bad News...
The Democratic Party has been faring poorly in elections for much of the last generation. Finally, however, the Democrats have not only found the problem, but they have addressed it. What is it? Well, let's just say it doesn't involve the answer to balancing the national budget, or even civil liberties and security concerns. In fact, Democrats are reluctant to point out the factor likely to propel their party to electoral success. From today's Washington Post:
"By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates.
The beauty gap between the parties, some on Capitol Hill muse, could even be a factor in who controls Congress after Election Day.
Democratic operatives do not publicly say that they went out of their way this year to recruit candidates with a high hotness quotient. Privately, however, they acknowledge that, as they focused on finding the most dynamic politicians to challenge vulnerable Republicans, it did not escape their notice that some of the most attractive prospects were indeed often quite attractive...
Some of the academic research on beauty and voting goes back decades, to the early 1970s. In 1990, political scientist Lee Sigelman, then at the University of Arizona, posited that Democrats were losing ground nationally, despite an advantage in voter registration, because their looks were a turnoff. He rated all governors and members of Congress on an ugliness scale and found that of the 26 least attractive, 25 were Democrats.
The playing field these days is more level. Research has shown that if candidates invest a little effort in their looks, the payoff can be huge. Campaign consultants hover around candidates, ordering them to change their hairstyles, get in shape and update their wardrobes. "The bar has been raised, without question," said Sigelman, now a George Washington University political science professor."
Talk about a facile solution. Anyhow, it seems the media trend toward superficiality is resonating with voters. So let me call it early: Katie Couric For President!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Campaign Ads
After searching through much of the current campaign ads, I finally came across this one. After a while as the ads all start to look the same, this one stands out. This ad shows you what citizens really need to know in order to make informed choices. It is succinct and to the point, showing voters what the issues in a campaign really are. But I need say no more. Watch it for yourself.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
From the pages of The New Republic: (try this link; otherwise try to get your hands on last week's issue)
"Democrats may win back the House or the Senate this year, but, even if they do, the majority that Karl Rove helped to construct remains formidable. Whatever happens this November, no one should be fooled: The Democrats are still in deep trouble...
It was the central achievement of [Republican strategists] Wallace, Black, and Atwater to link all these themes--elitism, religion, race, sexuality--together with a range of economic and social issues in order to assemble an overarching message. Indeed, because they so successfully conflated the various characteristics of liberalism into a single image over time, GOP strategists are now able to use any one issue--affirmative action, gay marriage, flag burning--to effectively raise them all. From this perspective, taxes are used to finance welfare programs that encourage family dissolution. Blacks and immigrants are deeply affected by such government policies, but, in the Republican view, no family is immune. Lax law enforcement, no-fault divorce, sex education, and pornography together foster fragile families and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which, in turn, drive crime, drug abuse, and urban and suburban chaos. In the eyes of the cultural right, the sexual revolution, the women's rights revolution, and the blurring of gender roles--as well as abortion and the so-called gay agenda--all merge to usurp the status of those who were traditionally dominant, to upend authority, including paternal authority, and to corrode the lives of children and orderly, decent communities. All of this is abetted by an activist judicial system that promotes secularism and enables the emergence of an increasingly deregulated sphere for immoral private action. To liberals, all of this may sound like a laughable caricature of their political philosophy. But, to conservatives, it has long been a reliable formula for victory--and it still is..."
Match that, Mainstream media.
"Democrats may win back the House or the Senate this year, but, even if they do, the majority that Karl Rove helped to construct remains formidable. Whatever happens this November, no one should be fooled: The Democrats are still in deep trouble...
It was the central achievement of [Republican strategists] Wallace, Black, and Atwater to link all these themes--elitism, religion, race, sexuality--together with a range of economic and social issues in order to assemble an overarching message. Indeed, because they so successfully conflated the various characteristics of liberalism into a single image over time, GOP strategists are now able to use any one issue--affirmative action, gay marriage, flag burning--to effectively raise them all. From this perspective, taxes are used to finance welfare programs that encourage family dissolution. Blacks and immigrants are deeply affected by such government policies, but, in the Republican view, no family is immune. Lax law enforcement, no-fault divorce, sex education, and pornography together foster fragile families and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which, in turn, drive crime, drug abuse, and urban and suburban chaos. In the eyes of the cultural right, the sexual revolution, the women's rights revolution, and the blurring of gender roles--as well as abortion and the so-called gay agenda--all merge to usurp the status of those who were traditionally dominant, to upend authority, including paternal authority, and to corrode the lives of children and orderly, decent communities. All of this is abetted by an activist judicial system that promotes secularism and enables the emergence of an increasingly deregulated sphere for immoral private action. To liberals, all of this may sound like a laughable caricature of their political philosophy. But, to conservatives, it has long been a reliable formula for victory--and it still is..."
Match that, Mainstream media.
The Other Side of the Story
From Scrappleface.com, reliably reporting the underreported side of stories, repeatedly overlooked by MSM*:
Child Predation Bill Would Protect Most Vulnerable Parties
By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.com News
Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
(2006-10-03) — Just five weeks before national elections, in the wake of allegations that disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, preyed on teenage boys, the House of Representatives this week will take up debate on a bipartisan measure to protect “the true victims” of Congressional sexual predation.
“We have seen the tragic toll of this disgusting crime,” said one unnamed lawmaker. “Someone needs to stand up for those who stand to lose the most. This bill would protect the vulnerable political parties and their candidates who get innocently swept up in the wave of voter anger that follows such revelations. Everyone’s worried about the children, but someone needs to ask ‘what about the candidates?’”
Experts agree that the emotional toll of losing pivotal legislative seats because of sexual predation can be devastating to both political campaign strategists and the candidates who love them.
Shortly after the story broke, mental health professionals were dispatched to Congressional offices and the headquarters of the Democrat and Republican parties to deal with the psychological aftermath.
“They’re wrestling with issues of fear and insecurity that gets worse as November approaches,” said one unnamed psychologist. “If we don’t intervene, they could be scarred for life, or at least until the next election cycle.”
Although the Foley scandal involves a Republican, the bill has drawn support from both sides of the aisle because, as one Democrat said, “Congressional sexual predation knows no political boundaries and it can strike at any time.”
*immanent eschaton does not take responsibility for the views expressed in this article.
Child Predation Bill Would Protect Most Vulnerable Parties
By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.com News
Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
(2006-10-03) — Just five weeks before national elections, in the wake of allegations that disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, preyed on teenage boys, the House of Representatives this week will take up debate on a bipartisan measure to protect “the true victims” of Congressional sexual predation.
“We have seen the tragic toll of this disgusting crime,” said one unnamed lawmaker. “Someone needs to stand up for those who stand to lose the most. This bill would protect the vulnerable political parties and their candidates who get innocently swept up in the wave of voter anger that follows such revelations. Everyone’s worried about the children, but someone needs to ask ‘what about the candidates?’”
Experts agree that the emotional toll of losing pivotal legislative seats because of sexual predation can be devastating to both political campaign strategists and the candidates who love them.
Shortly after the story broke, mental health professionals were dispatched to Congressional offices and the headquarters of the Democrat and Republican parties to deal with the psychological aftermath.
“They’re wrestling with issues of fear and insecurity that gets worse as November approaches,” said one unnamed psychologist. “If we don’t intervene, they could be scarred for life, or at least until the next election cycle.”
Although the Foley scandal involves a Republican, the bill has drawn support from both sides of the aisle because, as one Democrat said, “Congressional sexual predation knows no political boundaries and it can strike at any time.”
*immanent eschaton does not take responsibility for the views expressed in this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
