| Subject: Re: Primary elections (in PA) on Tuesday, and no one has anything to decry? |
Author:
schilda
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:34:45 04/25/04 Sun
In reply to:
Ray
's message, "Re: Primary elections (in PA) on Tuesday, and no one has anything to decry?" on 03:18:03 04/25/04 Sun
The interview that prompted my original post in this thread aired last Sunday (week ago).
The interviewee: a congressman running against a long-tenured US senator for the senator's seat.
The interview went something like this:
Cong: we have to outlaw this practice!!
Interviewer: and what penalty would you impose on people who commit the act?
Cong: i don't know, but we have to criminalize it as soon as possible!!
Interviewer: would it be a felony or a misdemeanor?
Cong: i don't know, but we have to criminalize it as soon as possible!!! it doesn't matter what the penalty is so long as we outlaw the act!!!!
ETC.
Every question the interviewer asked that called for a substantive answer evoked the same basic response: "i don't know, but we have to criminalize it as soon as possible!!"
It was extremely disturbing to watch the interview and think that someone so passionate about making something illeagal has not given any thought to what the deterrent should be.
I found the link to the transcript, but much of it is just delineated as "crosstalk" so it doesn't come thru quite as brutal as my synopsis above. And it reads like the interviewer may have bullied the interviewee. But listening to the interview was distressing -- that someone would seek to outlaw something without having a clue what the penalty should be.
Anyway, so you can think for yourselves, here is a redacted transcript:
Cong: [Interviewer], I‘m not sure what the penalty would be. I‘m saying...
(CROSSTALK)
Interviewer: Well, say what you want it to be. . . . (CROSSTALK) . . . You said it should be banned. Would you please stand up for what you believe?
Cong: That‘s right.
Interviewer: If [the act] is wrong and it‘s a crime . . . , tell me what the punishment should be.
Cong: And I‘m telling you that there should be legal action taken against the [vendor].
Interviewee: And?
Cong: And we‘ve got to think through what we would do with regard to the [purchaser].
Interviewer: What would you like to do?
Cong: But, [interviewer], that doesn‘t change the fact
(CROSSTALK)
Interviewer: You are running for the United States Senate. . . . And you‘ve said we ought to get rid of [case law] and you said that [the activity] should be banned in [your state], but you won‘t tell me what the penalty should be.
Cong: That‘s right, [Interviewer]. Look, we can take things one step at a time. I think that the constitutional decision was invalid. It‘s perfectly OK to believe that these justices made up a right that doesn‘t exist in the Constitution without deciding exactly what the penalty should be under all circumstances.
(CROSSTALK)
INterviewer: You want to make up a law without a penalty. It‘s a crime without a penalty. I‘ve never heard of such a thing.. . . (CROSSTALK) . . . Why declare something to be. . .(Crosstalk) I‘m serious. This is the problem and the confusion over [this activity] in this country. . . . (CROSSTALK) . . . People on the far right side won‘t say what they‘ll do. They simply say they don‘t like the way things are now. What would you do?
Cong: Well, if we overturn [the case law], one of the things we could do is leave it to states to make some decisions about this.
(CROSSTALK)
Interviewer: And what would you support [your state] doing? You are running for senator from [your state]. What should [your state] do to [people] who decide to purchase the activity? What would you do to them?
Cong: I‘ve told you, I haven‘t figured out what I think we should be doing with
(CROSSTALK)
Interviewer: Well, shouldn‘t you figure out a few of these things before you run for office? . . . (CROSSTALK) . . . Shouldn‘t you make those basic decisions?
(CROSSTALK)
Cong: I think my voting record is pretty clear. I have got a very long voting record. I have made a lot of decisions. And I think it‘s perfectly legitimate to say that one doesn‘t necessarily support this decision.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 