Part-Time Lover: Congressman Mark Souder Admits Extramarital Affair (May 18, 2010)

What was the deal?  Two weeks after victory in the Republican primary,  U.S. Representative Mark Souder of Indiana's third congressional district stunned the Hoosier state by announcing his resignation from Congress and withdrawal from his re-election campaign.  Rumors had been circulating in political circles for months about Souder's involvement with part time staffer Tracy Jackson.  The scandal finally came to light in May 2010 when Souder's chief of staff confronted him about the rumors, leading the staunch conservative to admit his infidelity.  Six days later, Souder went public.

What did he say?  A transcript of Souder's brief public statement, delivered three years ago today, can be found here.  In the video of the speech above, the congressman does go off script a few times, most notably when he explains why his wife is not standing with him at the announcement.

How did he do?  For a short speech, there's a lot here to deal with.  First, Souder describes the affair as a "mutual relationship"?  Huh?  He really could use some help from one of our regulars Mark Sanford when it comes to waxing poetic about one's illicit passion so that it doesn't sound like a contract clause.

On a more substantive level, well, it's still not that great.  Granted, it's a resignation speech, so no vigorous or creative self-defense is expected.  Still, even a resignation speech should try to present the speaker in the best light possible under the circumstances.  The address likely will remain the public's dominant memory of the accused and should not undermine a possible comeback down the road.  In his public statement, Souder attempts two reasonable strategies:  mortification strategy (apologize, seeking forgiveness, and accepting responsibility) and identification strategy (emphasizing similarities between the accused and the audience).  Regarding the former, the congressman confesses:  "I have sinned against God, my wife, and my family," "The error is mine and I should bear the responsibility," and "I am so ashamed to have hurt those I love and I am so sorry to have let so many friends down."  He also identifies with the audience throughout the short speech, reminding the people of the third district of the bond he shares with them (his family had lived in the area for 160 years, he had been elected by the district's voters eight times, etc.).  Near the speech's end, Souder returns to this theme:  "I love this area.  This is my home.  It has been such an honor to serve you for sixteen years.  My family and I have given our all for this area."  If Souder planned to maintain his career and community in northeastern Indiana (and it sounded as though he did), it makes sense to hit these notes and try to win back those closest to him.  Although one could also argue that pursuing an identification strategy when you're fresh off admitting immoral behavior may fall flat.

Of more concern is that Souder didn't stop there.  He trots out a dubious and hypocritical provocation strategy:  "It has been all consuming for me to do this job well, especially in a district with costly competitive elections every two years. I do not have any sort of 'normal' life--for family, for friends, for church, for community."  The implication that the rigors of his political position alienated him from his relationships and morals and somehow drove him into adultery is pretty absurd.  One suggestion for better time management on the job?  Stop having sex with your co-worker!  Sheesh.  So much for bearing the responsibility.  Then he combines some bolstering with transcendence to argue that his resignation is to protect his family from the the "partisan" use of the scandal as a "political football" in the "poisonous environment of Washington, D.C."  I'm sorry, but a conservative, family values evangelical pol should know going in that his marital infidelity will make for an easy target.  One suggestion for protecting your family from the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C.?  Stop having sex with your co-worker!  Hey, I'm starting to see a pattern.  Bonus irony:  Mark and Tracy had already worked together on this pro-abstinence YouTube video!  

One suggestion for increasing one's credibility when asking teens to forego "mutual relationships"...?  You get the idea...

Final Call?  Botched.  Yes, he does show some genuine emotion and obviously feels bad about what he did.  But in the end it's just another guy claiming to take responsibility while blaming others, playing the victim, and spouting hypocrisy.  Not a graceful exit and Souder hasn't been heard from since.

Update: Mark Sanford Wins Congressional Seat, Keeps Lover

Remember last summer when I wrote here about the marital infidelity of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the press conference attempting to explain his misbehavior, an explanation heavily influenced, it seemed, by the overheated yet soggy prose of Robert James Waller?  My final call at the time was that, although the Governor was able to finish his term, his political future remained cloudy.

Then this happened last night.

The clouds have parted for newly elected congressman Sanford and he can move forward with both his political career and Argentine lover (now fiancee).  In the end, the same communication behavior that doomed him in 2009 saved him in 2013--his total willingness to overshare with the media.  Sanford's near-constant press availability during the closing week of the campaign (especially in contrast to his opponent's play-it-safe strategy) created precious opportunities for Sanford to plant doubts about Elizabeth Colbert Busch's policy positions and ease voters' discomfort with awarding him a second chance in politics.

Few things inspire more ambivalence than a story of premature redemption born of dumb luck and voting district party affiliation disparity.  But the romantic in me sighs and thinks "I knew those two would end up together...."  

Texas Toast: Ten Year Anniversary of Dixie Chicks' "Entertainment Weekly" Cover and Interview About Anti-Bush Remark (May 2, 2003)

What was the deal?  During a concert in London on March 10, 2003, with the U.S. a week from invading Iraq, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines told an audience, “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas,” referring to fellow Lone Star denizen, President George W. Bush, a strong proponent of war with Iraq.  With that, the popular country trio was plunged into controversy and castigation.  Outraged fans, media commentators, and politicians accused Maines—along with bandmates Martie Maguire and Emily Robison—of being unpatriotic and even traitorous to their country.  That Maines made the remark on the brink of war and on foreign only intensified the negative reaction.  The retribution was swift:  radio stations stopped playing the Chicks' music, album sales plummeted, and calls for the band's demise came from multiple quarters.  On March 14, Maines apologized, acknowledging that the President should always be given the "utmost respect."  After two months of silence on the flap, Maines, Maguire, and Robison sat down for an interview with Entertainment Weekly to address the situation.

What did they say?  The interview, which appeared in the May 2, 2003, issue of the entertainment magazine, can be found here.

How did they do?  Maines uses differentiation strategy early in the exchange when she makes a distinction between President Bush and U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, emphasizing that her disapproval was directed at the former, not the latter.  Maguire corroborates this claim by revealing that Robison immediately added "But you know we support the troops 100 percent."  No one has disputed this account, so it would seem to be a pretty effective move to add this pivotal information in a high-profile media interview.  Maines repeated her apology for disrespecting the office of the president (mortification strategy) and smartly draws on her positive role as a mother (Bolstering strategy) to express her concerns and fears about Iraqi children potentially harmed by the U.S. invasion, or worse.  Finally, employing transcendence strategy, Robison stated:  "I think everyone is afraid [about tensions in the world] and they need to vent it somehow.  Not that they aren't truly mad [at us] about something.  But what brings something to this level, especially when we as a group or Natalie have never said anything in this realm before?"  Robison clearly acknowledges that this strategy may be pushing it, however, if one finds the public and media reaction disproportionate, she reminds the audience that this may not be about the Dixie Chicks after all.

Final Call?  Sinkhole.  Over time, the Dixie Chicks were able crawl out of the hole and reestablish their critical and commercial success, but certainly this interview didn't help much.  So if the trio effectively applied well-established apologia strategies, as I seem to conclude above, why did this media event fail?  Two reasons:  First, the cover.  Although Maguire defends the provocative pose during the Q&A, it just came across as gratuitous, desperate, and, frankly, a little confusing.  Why create this polarizing distraction that hits the reader in the face and reminds them of the trumped-up charges before turning the interview itself?  Second, the era.  As with Arnold Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" comment, this controversy arose at a very weird time in our political and cultural history.  With patriotism wielded like a blunt weapon, rational dissent and worldly sophistication were routinely eviscerated.  To that extent, Robison may not have been persuasive, but she was correct:  The Dixie Chicks were swept away in the whirlwind of post-9/11 scapegoating.