Here and there, if you read the tea leaves carefully, you'll find some criticism directed at the anti-game violence efforts of prominent politicians. Here are some recent samples in which the issue raised by critics concerns the relevance of game legislation in the overall political process:
Seattle University's Spectator Online tackles Hillary Clinton in a piece called "Time for a Democrat, but not Hillary."
The editorial reads, in part: "Though viewed as 'the liberal who could take us to victory,' even her position as a liberal is questionable. Much of Clinton's recent action has been to take measures against personal liberties. Her campaign against the violent video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a prime example. I know that simulated sex scenes in adult-oriented video games are probably the biggest threat to America at this point in time, and I'm certainly resting easier now that copies were pulled from shelves, but is this the mentality we want our leader to have?"
Meanwhile, in San Mateo, California, the Daily Journal reports on a tight race for a State Senate seat in the June Democratic primary. Assembly Speaker pro tem Leland Yee, architect of California's violent video game law, is facing tough competition from fellow Dems Lou Papan and Mike Nevin.
Papan is 77, but remains a political force in the contested district, which includes San Mateo and San Francisco. Nevin, 64, is a retired San Francisco police officer who has never held state office. Nonetheless, the Daily Journal thinks Yee, 57, may struggle in the primary.
Papan took a shot at Yee's highly-publicized game legislation, telling the newspaper, "Quite frankly, video games aren't the most pressing issue in Sacramento right now."