Hegemony of the Handsome: American politics should be uglier.

Opinion Journal ^ | 03/20/2002 | MICHAEL MEDVED

[Pokey78]

Reformers worry over the way money corrupts our politics, but in this age of televised campaigns a handsome face can distort the process even more disastrously.

Consider John Edwards of North Carolina, the freshman senator anointed by ABC News as one of the two top Democrats (John Kerry of Massachusetts is the other) in the 2004 presidential sweepstakes. Why would this 49-year-old, who won his first (and only) race for office a mere 3

[Arthur McGowan]

Only people who can document that they read books should be allowed to vote. That would eliminate people who make their political judgments EXCLUSIVELY on the basis of looks.

[Dan from Michigan]

This is so F'ing pathetic. I don't think any topic irks me more than this.

The dems are trying this in Michigan. Our AG, Jenny Granholm(Grandstand) is VERY unqualified. But she is attractive to a lot of people(I can't get past her character). Many idiot women are voting for her because she's a woman. Many idiot guys are voting for her since "She's hot".

Never mind her inexperience. Never mind the fact that she wants to take away our 2nd amendment rights. Never mind the fact that she's pro-abort to an extreme(despite being 'Catholic'). Never mind that she wants to raise property taxes. "She's hot", so she'll gain some votes.

It's Edwards in reverse.

[T'wit]

Back when legions of ladies were out marching for women's suffrage, one of their leaders was candid enough to admit that all they were going to get was better-looking rascals in office. As far as I can see, she nailed it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Only people who can document that they read books should be allowed to vote.

Another way of looking at it is that if politics---unpaid as well as commercial--were removed from television the problem of "voters" behaving like beauty-contest judges would just about dissolve. Either way, Democrats would find themselves in a less friendly venue.

My proposal has the disadvantage of seeming to fail the kook test, I know--but it has the advantage of fitting the Constitution:

- The FCC created broadcasting when it rationed out licenses to the few and forbade the many to transmit.

- The FCC grants only temporary licenses, requiring periodic applications claiming that renewal is "in the public interest".

- The FCC therefore has the authority to order the termination of the news divisions of the networks.

- The First Amendment forbids anything remotely resembling that authority, in the realm of personal (non-broadcast) speech, and in print. That broadcasting should have political influence is inherently constitutionally suspect.

- Inasmuch as broadcasting as we know it cannot exist if all are given equal transmitting authority, the only way to have a legally level playing field would be to give no one broadcasting authority.

Traffic an weather reports are actually beneficial to the people, and should be continued, and

the political import of live sports coverage seems to be de minimis and that certainly might be continued.

Everything else might also be continued if subjected to a one-week tape delay so that journalism would be almost entirely suppressed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Free the USA]

bttt

[PJ-Comix]

Today, another handsome senator from Massachusetts with the initials JFK--John Forbes Kerry--represents the chief challenger to John Edwards in the battle for best-looking challenger.

I gotta disagree with Medved on this. Kerry looks like the Frankenstein monster. The "F" in his JFK stands for Frankenstein.