rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/07/84)
DON'T BLAME US! Democrat John Kerry, former national head of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, beat ultra-conservative Republican Ray Shamie, 55-45%, this despite Shamie's enormous campaign spending (including $1 million of his own money, a heavily media-oriented campaign, & massive contribu- tions from GOP & New Right war chests), last-minute visits to Boston by Reagan on Thursday & UN delegate Jeanne Kirkpatrick on Saturday to boost him, Shamie's pretty much successful attempt to hide from the public his real political coloration (lunatic fringe), & his virtual betrothal to Reagan & Reaganism. Representative Gerry Studds, who was censured for an affair with a male congressional page, dredged up from 11 years ago by House prudes, won reelection easily over Republican Louis Crampton, 57-43%. Studds is now the FIRST OPENLY GAY PERSON to be elected to Congress. Silvio Conte, the only GOP incumbent in Massachusetts' House delega- tion, was reelected, but all the other seats went to Democrats, most of them LIBERALS, like Kerry & Studds. Reagan nearly lost Massachusetts, narrowly beating Mondale, 51.6-48.4%, or 1,117,771 to 1,051,513 with 98% of the precincts reporting. There were NO COATTAILS in this state. In fact, Reagan nearly lost his shirt! Nationally Reagan's "landslide" fell short of 60%, & of Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over McGovern. The vote, 59-41%, means less than 10% of the electorate gave Reagan victory, which is not much of a "mandate", even in terms of the inflated language of American politics. Bush alluded to this fact in his victory speech last night by pledging to represent not merely those who voted for his ticket, but "all the people". Belmont, MA, home of the national headquarters of the John Birch Soci- ety & hometown of its founder, candy millionaire Robert Welch, favored Mondale over Reagan. Two New Right kingpins BIT THE DUST in Senate races. Liberal Democrat Paul Simon took out crazy Chuck Percy (a former GOP liberal, who got "reborn" & slid to the far right) in Illinois. In Iowa, Tom Harkin, another Democratic liberal, whipped New Rightist Roger Jepsen, the principal sponsor of the notorious Family Protection Act. Reagan's coattails proved to be short: at this hour (noon, Wed.) the Republicans have GAINED ONLY 9-16 HOUSE SEATS (they needed 26 to restore the margin they enjoyed in 1981-2 when they allied with "boll weevil" Demo's to pass much Reaganite legislation), and they LOST 2 SENATE SEATS. The Democrats retain the congressional voting bloc that has successfully blocked most Reaganite bills for the last two years. 7 House races are still undecided at this time. Even worse for the Republicans, who despite postelection euphoria are beginning the bloody factional battle for party control & are already casting anxious eyes to the midterm elections, 22 GOP Senate seats will be up for reelection in 1986. Reagan thus has less than 2 years to sneak major tax increases past voters to reduce somewhat the massive federal deficit, which the GOP considers the most damag- ing issue for 1986 & which threatens to become devastating in Reagan's 2nd term. BTW, I'd like to hear from any netters interested in further reducing the number of New Rightists in the Congress, & planning for a big GOP Senate defeat in 1986. Let's continue the momentum & drive reaction- aries & bigots from office! Four More Years should be a windfall for political cartoonists, the carnival element in politics, & North American surrealism. It's going to be a wild & crazy time! Cheers, Ron Rizzo
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/08/84)
It looks like the GOP will pick up 13 House seats, falling well behind the 26 needed for a "working majority" (GOP + dixiecrats). The Senate now has 47 Democrats & 53 Republicans; if the Democrats win only 4 more seats in 1986, they'll achieve a majority of 51. In Vermont, Democrat Madeleine Kunin won the governorship by the closest of margins, getting 50.06% of the vote. Republican Easton conceded. The Democrats claim 34 governors (5 won yesterday), the GOP 18 (8 won yester- day). Surprisingly, the voter turnout, 92 1/2 million (or 53.2 % of the voting age population) was only slightly higher than in 1980. The extremely high turnout some anticipated didn't materialize. Unlike 1980, when Reagan ran against an incumbent, & the GOP swept the Senate, eliminating many long-familiar faces overnight, & creating a class of new GOP senators (especially New Rightists) who "literally owed their careers" [1] to the Reagan phenomenon, Reagan lacks the political means to carry out a "mandate". In fact, Reagan & his aides "cautiously avoided using the word `mandate'" [1] at today's press conference. But Reagan said, if Congress blocks his programs, he'll take his programs "to the people" [1]. (What's he gonna do? Hold plebiscites?) When half-jokingly asked if he now would have more regularly-scheduled press conferences (I'm sure our intellects all thirst for more!), he half-jokingly replied, "Look, I won. I don't have to subject myself to....[laughter]" Same old Reagan bluster, but the novelty of 1980 & the illusion of a GOP-controlled Congress is gone. What may increasingly emerge is an embittered & frustrated Reagan, more remote than ever. Did voters give him a "mandate"? Exit polls, interviews with voters, & breakdown of the Reagan vote suggest they didn't, but that they voted image (of an "effective presidency", "assertive foreign policy", etc.) & personality, while refusing to give the GOP a Congressional sweep and even defeating some of the most vocal GOP ideologues. The Midwest, very hard-hit economically, still gave Reagan an overwhelming margin. The message from the voters seems to be they like Reagan, but they don't want Congress to pass a lot of his programs. Despite the popularity of thinking a "Reagan Revolution" continues to alter public attitudes in fundamental ways, it does not seem that public opinion has significantly changed in the 4 years since 1980. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/09/84)
I think Ron has missed the major point against Studds (at least as far
as I'm concerned). The point is not that Studds is a homosexual, but
that he abused his office in having an affair with a subordinate (bad
enough in itself) who ALSO was a minor. To me, it is irrelevant
whether the object of his "affection" was male or female. It is the
exploitation of his position to pursue a minor partially in his
charge. He deserved the same fate as Crane.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidrob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (11/14/84)
> The point is not that Studds is a homosexual, but > that he abused his office in having an affair with a subordinate (bad > enough in itself) who ALSO was a minor. ... > It is the > exploitation of his position to pursue a minor partially in his > charge. He deserved the same fate as Crane. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david The subordinate was NOT a minor according to the Washington, D.C. laws that cover sexual relations; he was past the age of sexual consent, which I think is 16 in D.C. I think it important to note that no law was violated. Furthermore, from the details I have heard we do not know specifically in this case that Studds exploited is position as superior. It is not clear to me that when a subordinate and a superior have sexual relations there is 'a priori' exploitation. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!pbauae!rob
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/15/84)
Thanks for the info on the age of the page, Rob. I'd guessed he was "of age", but wasn't sure. Which makes the "Studds affair" (the media event) about Studds' affair even more interesting as one more case study in distortion, hysteria & vengeance by public institutions when energized by homophobia, this time involving Congress & the liberal press (including the hypocritical Boston Globe: a few days ago, colum- nist Ian Menzies tried ONCE AGAIN to fan the flames a la "Well (harumph!), he DID manage reelection....but MAYBE he won't run/win in '86!"). The basis for indignation against Studds' affair is now really very narrow, even trite: it's not only reduced to a mere peccadillo, but can only involve issues of occupational propriety: subordinates & bosses should not mix sex with work on the job, etc. According to all the page has said, the affair was entirely voluntary, mutually desired & satisfying & free of regret. It occurred 11 years ago. The recent issue of sexual exploitation on the job could only be applied retroactively, & appears to have little if any relevance. But did the sex MIX with work? It's perfectly clear that laws cannot outlaw erotic relationships between "consenting adults" in private life, away from work (the US isn't the USSR) without violating basic constitutional & common law provisions. If Studds' affair occurred reasonably removed from the "workplace", & it seemed pretty discreet, the only possible objection I can see is that Studds merely had bad luck: he failed to quash the disclosure. But given the fact that gossip, eavesdropping & polite blackmail are favorite pastimes of DC society, Studds would probably have needed the leverage of a J. Edgar Hoover to squelch it once admitted. Anyone who's familiar with DC life knows how widespread & common many "vices" such as boozing, whoring, snorting, etc. are among civil ser- vants: it's a longstanding tradition amid the stress & strain of offi- cial life. If all who indulged were purged, we'd cease to have a fede- ral gov't (do I hear libertarians cheering?). It's obviously not even improper, unless you're "caught", which usually means some unscrupulous sleaze seeks to advance his career by "exposing" the Honorable So-&-So. The legal & ethical issues of the "Studds Affair" are thus easy to define & settle (& eliminate?) by resorting to easily obtained public information. The moralistic inflation that created the scandal reveals how much homo- phobia STILL distorts basic perceptions even among the well-informed. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/16/84)
Whether the page had reached the age of sexual consent or not, he was still a minor. Also, even without pressuring the page, Studds was exploiting his postition. Would the page have consented had not Studds not been a House member? If not, wasn't Studds using his office to advance his sex life? David Rubin
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/19/84)
Whether you think that Congressman should be permitted to carry on
affairs with minors who are in their charge, you cannot dismiss the
objections to Studds actions as "homophobia" (a poorly coined word if
I've ever seen one). Ron, if I object to ALL Congressmen having
affairs with ANY Congressional pages, then it is not "homophobia" that
motivates me. You cannot dismiss Studds's actions by accusing all his
critics of prejudice; that is only a tactic to divert attention from
legitimate questions about Studds's ethics.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david