Herman Cain and the Sexual Harassment Boom

By Howard Templeton

IOWA CITY- Republican Presidential hopeful Herman Cain faced allegations of several incidents of sexual harassment over the last week, spiking support for the candidate in the weeks leading up to the Iowa straw poll. The allegations stem from the time Mr. Cain spent as the head of the National Restaurant Alliance and relate to inappropriate comments, unwanted sexual advances on female coworkers, and other behaviors that make him look even more presidential in the eyes of his supporters.

Pollsters noted that Cain latched onto a central tent of his ideology- persistent denigration of women- to galvanize his political base at a time when much of the Republican Party felt like there was no stand-out candidate in the field. “Mr. Cain seized a golden opportunity by allowing these allegations to surface at a time when so many of his opponents seem to be stuck in the mud,” said Felix Prosser of Gallup. “While some people across the country see sexual harassment as immoral, illegal, and indicative of bad character, the GOP has consistently responded positively to a man who can take charge and refuses to take no for an answer.”

Mr. Prosser went on to note that whatever damage the allegations have done to Mr. Cain among the group of voters characterized as “women who do not like having their asses slapped” is more than made up for by huge gains among “bitches just trying to get attention,” and “broads who were asking for it.” Additionally, when asked who they would support in a head-to-head matchup between Mr. Cain getting blown under a desk and Mr. Cain not getting blown under a desk, 87.5% of registered Republican voters opted for the former.

[LEFT- A young Herman Cain, or shall I say, Leon Phelps. NOT PICTURED: His bottle of Courvoisier.]

For his part, Mr. Cain claims to have learned his lesson from recent events on the campaign trail. “My grandmamma told me when I was a youngin to stick to what I know,” Mr. Cain told reporters gathered outside his campaign bus yesterday. “Now maybe I was out of line to bet talking about this 9-9-9 tax mumbo jumbo, so I’m going to leave the taxes to the accountants with all their calculators and pocket protectors. But there are three things I know, and they’re pizza, being president, and slappin’ asses. I’ve already done two of those things, now who’s gonna help me do the third?”

Critics across the aisle have pointed out that there is a touch of hypocrisy in the Republican enthusiasm for sexual harassment barely a decade after President Clinton was impeached for lying about his own White House affair. Republican strategists, however, point out that they were in favor of President Clinton’s dalliances all along, but were frustrated that they were not the party that would forever be remembered for getting Oval Office head. They also believed that Clinton showed very non-presidential pussy-whippedness by trying to cover up his affair, something that Republicans never do.

For all of Mr. Cain’s supporters, there are also many Republicans who feel that the sexual harassment allegations would have benefitted other candidates more. For instance, allegations of sexual harassment against Mitt Romney would have allayed public fears that he is too Mormon, and would have shown that he is not nearly as much of a sissy as he often appears on the campaign trail. Michelle Bachman, at a campaign stop this week in Des Moines, answered the allegations against Mr. Cain by calling him a bandwagon harasser. “Mr. Cain thinks he can win over voters by trotting out women who he hit on years ago, but he is late to the game. I have been making unwanted sexual advances to my husband, Marcus Bachman, since before we were even married!”

Dark horse candidate Ron Paul also chipped in that he, “killed several women on welfare in the ‘80s, because I just don’t think it’s the government’s role to be paying for these expensive entitlements.”

Notes on the Republican Nomination Campaign

By Liz Elizabeth, former VP of Programming for the CW Network

With the first few weeks of the 2011 fall TV season in the books, it has become obvious that the Republican Presidential Nomination Campaign is the season’s biggest smash hit. Like American Idol and Who Wants to be a Millionaire before it, the GOP Campaign has seamlessly blended the drama of a high stakes contest with the emotional levity of real life. Already this year, we have seen the passionate crowds boo a gay soldier and cheer executions. The storylines are so intense, it’s like Days of Our Lives on steroids! No wait, that’s pro wrestling, but this has been almost as good.

No matter how fast it comes out of the gate, every show has to adapt to keep viewers interested. If the writers keep trotting out the same old storylines about social security and health insurance, the public will be sure to switch back to The Real Housewives faster than you can say “Town Hall Style Debate.” With that in mind, I have a few notes for the GOP Primary producers.

Immunity Challenges

My first suggestion is a tried and true moneymaker in reality shows like this one- the immunity challenge. Ever since Survivor grabbed the game show conch more than a decade ago, the immunity challenge has been a staple of elimination-based programming. The beauty of immunity challenges is that they can change from week to week to keep from becoming predictable. Maybe one week, all of the Republican Presidential candidates will have to stand one-footed on a small platform above a pit full of snakes and bugs. Or maybe the candidates will have to kayak across a lake, only to discover a 100-foot rope ladder on the other side that they have to climb to capture the immunity idol. You'll have to tune in to find out! You never know what kind of task they’ll have to compete, but you know you’ll be getting their best effort, because the loser automatically makes it through the next state’s primary. Move over TNT- it looks like the GOP knows drama!

[RIGHT- The Black Eyed Peas will be performing as musical guests at the next Republican Presidential Debate, as well as 14 other new fall TV shows.]

Lifelines
Even though everyone laughs at the occasional high profile gaffe, America is still a country that likes a winner. We want to get behind a capable leader and cheer for him or her as they ascend to the top. With that in mind, if we insist on grilling the candidates on such arcane subjects as foreign policyand history, it might make sense to give them better odds at getting things right. For example, everyone turned on Sarah Palin in the last election because she couldn’t name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. It would have made better TV if Katie Couric had asked her which of the following was a Supreme Court case: (a) Kramer v. Kramer, (b) Man v. Food, (c) Plessy v. Ferguson, or (d) Versus Sports Network. If she still wasn’t sure, she could have polled the audience, or asked for the always pithy advice of Whoopi Goldberg in the center square. The way I see it, that format kills three birds with one stone: it gets the audience rooting for the candidate to increase emotional investment, it keeps the interview focused and on point, and it eliminates the silly gotcha question that only serves to give Michael Moore material for his next socialist propaganda rag (that’s why I like to call him the lefty Leni Reifenstahl). In other words, it’s a win win win. Or maybe a win win win win. I lost count.

Love Triangle
While the Sarah Palin-Glenn Rice intrigue might be enough sexual tension to pique the interest of that tiny minority of the party that approves of interracial relationships, it wouldn’t hurt to spice up the rest of the campaign. Now I’m not suggesting that they re-write the central plot of the campaign- the program will sink or swim on the strength of the Romney-Perry story no matter what-, but the Ron Paul Revolution is lagging as a C story arc. If it came out that he and Jon Huntsman had gone around the block with Michelle Bachman in the swingin’ 80s, everything would get a little bit zestier. Instead of reaching for the remote the next time he starts droning about the flat tax, the public can look forward to the sexually-motivated digs between the three of them. Maybe Bachman can tell Paul that he doesn’t “measure up” as a candidate. Maybe that’s a little too on the nose, but I’m not a writer. I’m just spitballing here.

Before I wrap things up, I should point out that I’m not a "political expert" per se. Still, if the Republicans want to keep their ratings up and get renewed for next year, they could do a lot worse than talking to me. After all, I’m the one who greenlighted phenomena like In Harm’s Way and Easy Money for the CW Network, so I think I know a thing or two about edgy, reality-based programming. By following this simple formula, the Republicans can accomplish the time-tested goal of being exactly like everything else that is on TV.

That, or they could just start talking about half of them are mormons.

Politicians seek to improve economy as fundraising season looms

By Francis LaViolette

GREENWICH- Politicians nationwide have started to express apprehension about the upcoming fundraising season as the nation’s economy continues to sputter. Fundraisers attribute the uneasy feeling to both the fear of the unknown and the harsh realization that the halcyon days of advertising bombardment may be a thing of the distant past.

Politicians running for office in 2012 have noticed a steady decline in the number and amount of donations coming from all sources. Private donors, who usually account for a large percentage of small donations, are less numerous than in the past. Perhaps more troublesome is the fact that corporate donors- historically a reliable bell cow for campaign spending- have expressed uncertainty about the economic and political climate. As a result, many large companies are holding onto cash, which is resulting in what economists call a “supply gap” in the political fundraising market.

[LEFT- Politicians are reaching out to all types of potential donors to fill in the gaps.]

Market analysts point out that potential election donors are worried about their potential return on investment in the political system. In the past, campaign donations have reliably yielded a steady 6% yearly return over the subsequent election cycle, occasionally spiking into double figures through targeted tax breaks, industry deregulation, and old-fashioned kickbacks. Today, despite low interest rates, election investors are worried that decades of political largesse may have created a grease money bubble where donors have over-leveraged themselves. They worry that political resources may be tapped: that tax rates and corporate welfare cannot get any more favorable without destroying the market altogether. Furthermore, partisan bickering- once seen as a necessary façade to make the process appear legitimate- has become an unwanted nuisance that gets between corporations and their government entitlements.

The candidates, for their part, are doing everything in their power to create a donation-friendly climate. For instance, many Congressmen who initially opposed health care reform are now pushing to implement requirements that all Americans purchase health insurance before the end of the year. Pundits have noted that those pushing for expedition are located in districts heavily populated by the insurance industry and could be chasing down donations from insurance companies who will be flush with donation cash from all of the new business guaranteed by the legislation.

With such a divisive election sure to come, everyone understands that it is important to get a head start in political fundraising. Without a substantial war chest, it would be impossible for a candidate to run a thorough negative campaign against his or her adversary. A good smear campaign requires calculated leaks to the media, suggestive TV and radio ads with enough double meaning potential to maintain some plausible deniability, and outright slander from political action committee hacks. If a candidate is not able to start the negative campaign process soon, there may not be enough time to complete the full arc of attacks, which may leave voters with an incomplete hatred of one candidate or another when going to the polls. The potential for disaster is especially large in an election year that includes so many fringe candidates. Imagine, for example, if voters are still hearing messages about Michelle Bachman’s husband being secretly gay during the general election. That message might play to the Republican base, but independent voters would be much more likely to turn against her for general incompetence or whatever corruption scandal her opponents fabricate between now and the election.

Donations have been so hard to come by that some politicians have had to find creative ways to line their coffers leading up to the election. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently found himself in hot water for receiving $1 million from an untraceable and non-existent corporation. Romney blamed the incongruity on the bad economic conditions saying, “I would have never had to make up this imaginary shady donor if my regular, actual shady donors had enough cash to bankroll my dead end campaign.” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) has been able to keep his head above water by soliciting lump-sum donations from his state’s powerful coal lobby. It is not yet known whether the “lump of coal” payment is an actual donation or an ironic mockery of his performance in office.

Perhaps the hardest hit by the fundraising shortfall has been the Tea Party, whose candidates have been consistently flabbergasted by their constituency’s irrational insistence that they stay within their modest election budgets. Their democratic counterparts, conversely, have continued to spend lavishly in hopes that the election will pay for itself in the long run.