How To Make Americans Care About All of These Scandals: Find a Hot Chick

fawnOver the past few weeks, we’ve been listening to conservative pundits predicting that the multitude of significant government scandals catching momentum in some quarters of the media will ultimately bring down the Obama administration.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was one of the first to weigh in back in early May, stating his belief that the president wouldn’t even be able to complete his second term in office due to the Benghazi cover-up. Others have since made similar forecasts.

Yet, even as more and more damning evidence of breathtaking corruption has been unearthed in recent weeks, we haven’t seen the president take much of a hit in the national public opinion polls.

And really, why should we?

Practically every branch of the media spent President Obama’s entire first term in office defining the man as a largely infallible figure. To the media, and thus to a good portion of the public, he’s been worthy of strong accolades for generating results so poor that had he been a Republican, the narrative would have been about whether or not the president should have even bothered running for re-election.

But because of who Barack Obama is (the ultimate symbol of the liberal media’s progressive hopes and dreams), they acted as unofficial surrogates for the president’s perpetual campaign, framing his official campaign’s narratives as benchmarks for public debates.

Obviously, it worked. Enough Americans were convinced that none of the country’s problems were Obama’s fault, he deserved 100% credit for what little good news there was, and no one could have possibly done any better given the circumstances.

When the baseline is held as low as it was for this president, it’s almost impossible not to meet the public’s expectations – especially with a public as unengaged as this generation of Americans.

So now that the election is over, and even fewer people are paying attention to what’s going on now than back then, a relatively small number of journalists finally deciding to take their jobs seriously by scrutinizing the actions of our federal government isn’t going to draw a lot of attention. It’s certainly not going to draw the kind of attention such stories deserve and would have received if George W. Bush was still in office.

Thus, where we stand now is that most of the country is more likely to think “Benghazi” is the name of a zany board game played at adult parties, than it is the location where four American patriots were murdered under circumstances the administration lied about. The name “James Rosen” will more likely be mistaken for a player on a professional sports team than it will be identified with a reporter who the U.S. government tracked and labeled a criminal and flight-risk for merely doing his job.

Thanks to four years of media advocacy, a significant portion of the country has been conditioned to let criticism of President Obama fall on deaf ears. At this point, anything short of the president having a Martin Lawrence-like nervous breakdown, and running across the White House lawn naked while screaming at tourists, isn’t going to force these people to question his integrity and competency.

This doesn’t bode well for Republicans hoping to gain political momentum from all of these scandals for the 2014 election. Sure, these scandals are very real, very disturbing, and they should transcend politics. After all, we’re talking about deliberate, corrupt actions that multiple federal agencies took part in. But it would be disingenuous to state that Republicans don’t want to capitalize politically off of those actions. Of course they do.

But how can they make Americans care about these scandals, when the sobering reports on these stories haven’t been enough?

Well, if I was someone who had grown incredibly cynical when it comes to America’s capacity to realize when something is truly important, I would suggest that Republicans adhere to a proven formula that always draws massive public attention to news stories: Find a hot chick.

Americans (both men and women) always care far more about a story when a hot chick is involved in it. It’s part of our inner-adolescence.

Murder trials generally don’t receive a lot of national attention. But if you add a hot chick like Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, or Amanda Knox to the mix, you can run headline stories on it for months because the public will suddenly care.

If a woman goes missing under suspicious circumstances, her family had better hope she’s hot. If she is, the story will receive lots of helpful media attention and public interest for months. If she’s not, their only hope is law enforcement, because the public just won’t care enough to warrant extra media attention.

And I’m the first to admit, even though I was too young at the time to understand the Iran-Contra hearings, I’ve never forgotten the name Fawn Hall. Hall was Oliver North’s attractive secretary who testified before congress and garnished a lot of public interest because of her looks.

So if the Republicans want to get the American public to finally care about all of the corrupt things their government is doing, why not find a hot chick? All they have to do is seek out the hottest-looking, female government employees they can find, who are even remotely associated with each of these scandals (or merely the departments tied to these scandals), and subpoena them. Have them testify before congress. If they’re low-level employees with no real relevance, so what? Bring them forward, place them in front of the cameras, ask them lots of questions to keep them on the stand for as long as possible, and then – only then – will the low-information Americans begin to care.

Sure, I’m being facetious. But does anyone reading this honestly believe I’m wrong?

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • George Penwell

    If Conservatives want to take this country back they need to start playing dirty like the Liberals do. Mitt Romney took the high road in his campaign and also in his debates with Obama. Though it was vey admirable of him and won him much respect from me it did not help him win. We need hard nosed, kick in the balls people fighting for our Constitution, civil liberties and freedoms not these milquetoasts that seem to be cowering in the wake of Sir Brack Obama’s shadow.
    Obama has gotten a free pass because people have been, and are still being, conditioned to think that if you disagree with him you must be a racist. Not to mention that his political backers in his own party fear his reprisals for doing anything that might displease The Fuhrer. The mainstream media also fear his SS tactics towards those whom oppose him.

    I’m no political scientist and you folks may not think I’m too bright, (and I’m probably not), but I believe that in general people need to start standing up more for what’s right in this country. For everyone that has the courage to do so it inspires some one else’s stand.

    In other words the Conservatives in this country need to man up and fight and let the chips fall where tey may.

  • I Hate Fascists

    Hi Sweetie! Miss me?

  • robertjw

    Seriously, the Iran-Contra hearings were in ’87. You were too young to understand? I think you are misleading people about your age!

    • John Daly

      I was 15 in ’87. Do you think the average 15 year-old understood the context of, or had any interest in, the Iran-Contra controversy?

      • robertjw

        I was a 15 year old high school student, and yes, I was very interested in the Iran-Contra controversy. I remember watching Oliver North testify (although strangely I don’t remember Fawn Hall much). I may not have understood everything that was going on, but how many Americans do you think did.

        Your article made it sound like you were 8 or something!

        • John Daly

          >>I was a 15 year old high school student, and yes, I was very interested in the Iran-Contra controversy

          Good for you. I wasn’t, and neither was probably 95% of people our age. You were clearly an exception.

          Again, I was aware of the hearings. I just didn’t understand them or quite frankly care about them.

  • Wheels55

    The problem is, there are no hot chicks in the Obama administration – none at all. Obama does not hang around any hot looking women. He didn’t even marry one.

    As for the left painting Obama as the best President ever, just think of how many on the left who are actors or writers. They can imagine just about anything. When it comes to left-leaning politics, fiction is fact.

  • artlouis

    I am going to start a Fawn Hall fan club, and apply for tax-exempt status. Wish me luck.

    • John Daly

      Good luck! ;)

  • Brian Fr Langley

    oooh pretty shiny sparkly! Ok I agree that oogling hot chicks is a rather fatuous pursuit. But the real scandal here is how conservatives themselves are caught up with shiny objects. Traditional values (you know the tried and true ones that founded this civilization) are literally disappearing right in front of our disbelieving eyes. While I could name a thousand, I’ll point out just one (otherwise this post would be a 100 pages or so) What do you call an economy where money is freely printed and interest is pegged? I’ll give you a clue. It’s not called called a free market economy. (they call it a command ecomony, you know the one favoured by Marxists and Fascists). If interest rates were subject to free market forces, today they would be much higher. That’s a good thing right? Not if you’re a virtuous saver, whose saved all your life to retire. You put off buying bling, (and shiny stuff) so you could take care of yourself with your savings. Instead the Government would rather reward profligate spenders (the bling buyers) with (as it turns out) your money. That is interest rates are being deliberately suppressed, to reward you buying a shiny new sports car, while penalizing the poor schmuck who forgoes the new car to save for his kids college fund. This used to be a society where saving was virtuous, and spending money you didn’t have was considered ignoble. As to printing money? Ask anybody you meet, if it’s ok to add water to the whisky (or sawdust to the wheat), And I’m quite sure they’ll tell you it’s cheating and stealing. oooh pretty, shiny, sparkly, um, where was I again????

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    To answer your last question; no, you’re not wrong. Unfortunately, it is this very shallowness of today’s culture that is going to destroy our country.