He could have been more decorous about it, but it is hard to argue with the basic observation that Congress seems to be filled with a lot of lonely yet powerful middle-aged creeps, accustomed to taking charge of the space around them, who have a hard time keeping their hands to themselves.

Thank you. I was hoping that someone would have the honesty to say this.

Posts like this drive me up the wall. It's fine to call David Brooks a mediocre hack, armchair sociologist or whatever. Pronounce him wrong on this, that or the other. But at least present an argument why he's wrong. In this case, Jim Sleeper presents the argument that Brooks is wrong because...well, because he doesn't like Brooks. Or something.

I actually thought Brooks, whatever his previous sins, made a reasonable point in this case. Anyone who has met and talked to a high-level politician knows the personality type. They ARE almost guaranteed to invade your personal space - to drape an arm around your shoulder, to clap you on the back one two many times etc. in ways that are generally not normal in American culture. The politician who put his hand on Brooks's thigh during dinner(and one senses a bit of embellishment in that story) may be a bit extreme, but the point is still the same.

I thought the part about the erectile dysfunction ads was out of place in the article, Jim. They don't seem to have much to do with pornification. Yes, the ads make some people uncomfortable; but that's only the same kind of discomfort some people feel in watching ads for condoms, tampons and toilet paper. Some folks don't like to be reminded that people have penises, vaginas and anuses, and that familiar substances ooze and flow out of them. But it's just part of life. They ads aren't titillating, and they don't convey a depersonalized or antisocial attitude toward others.