The Difference Between Democrats And Republicans On Scandal
It is disgraceful when either Democrats or Republicans get involved in scandal, but there is one major difference: their reaction to it, at least in many cases.
Eliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, and Charles Rangel all resigned or stepped down from their position of authority (Rangel). While David Paterson has not done so yet, it is clear he will be forced to very soon.
On the other hand, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, and John Ensign refused to resign, and decided to "tough" it out, no matter how embarrassing to their party, and all but Craig are still in office, showing no shame.
Of course, it might be said that what is the real difference, since all of the above individuals have been involved in activities that should never have happened.
But at least the Democrats have not gone around touting their "family values" and "high moral principles" and then showing themselves as the hypocrites that Republicans regularly have been!
As a person who believes in total disclosure and promotion of truth, of course, it must be mentioned that Democrats John Edwards and Rod Blagojevich are in a separate class--despicable, and unwilling to come clean by their own confessions.
But at the end, whether revealed or confessed or not, all of the above and those others who are involved in scandal in both parties need to be condemned for their behavior, as having failed to uphold their oath of office!
American Politics In Crisis: No One Is Trusted Or Believed!
The problem of our political system is that whether Democrat or Republican, we have reached the stage where events and behavior makes most Americans lack trust or belief in any politician, and that is indeed sad! 
Between the dalliances of Republicans like John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley and others, and that of Democrats like Eliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, John Edwards, Eric Massa, and yes Bill Clinton sadly along with others, most Americans have a very low opinion of the morals of our leaders.
Add to that the financial or other behavioral irregularities of such political leaders as Charles Rangel, David Paterson, Rod Blagojevich and others on the Democratic side and Bob Taft, Joe Wilson, Marco Rubio and others on the Republican side, and you get total cynicism by vast numbers of Americans!
Politics has become an industry where winning power is the only important thing, even though stalemate and gridlock is the constant result after elections. Negativism and character assassination is the norm, and radio talk shows, cable news, internet blogs, and political activists are only interested in confrontation, rather than compromise!
The sense of a common bond and a bright future are being lost, and yet there is no real alternative except to "throw out the rascals" and replace them with new leaders, who unfortunately will be likely to follow the same pattern, due to the overwhelming influence of lobbyists and pressure groups that care not a whit for anything but their own selfish interests!
And we live in a country which is oriented toward cutting taxes but keeping spending at the same or greater rate, but no one has yet figured out how to keep services such as education, hospitals, social workers, police, firefighters, paramedics, higher education, prisons, road, and other public needs met by cutting taxes. We live in an unreal world in which somehow we want and need the services, but want OTHERS to pay for them! The answer, unfortunately, is that we face the greatest cuts in public services since the Great Depression until we understand that the only way to meet public demand is to pay MORE taxes!
This is what the conservatives and the Tea Party Movement do not understand! Either more taxes are essential, or crippling cuts in public services that no one wants will have to occur! The age of constant cutting of taxes is nearing an end, whether we like it or not!
But will the American people ever again trust anyone who leads us? That is the question of the present and the future, and the likelihood is that the answer is NO!
The “Public Option” Returns As Health Costs Go Sky High
Just as the health insurance companies are calling for record increases in premiums from their subscribers, creating a major crisis for millions of Americans, the concept of a "public option" is being revived by the Obama White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a growing number of Democratic Senators.
After a cautious approach and attempts to gain GOP votes in the Senate, which has totally failed, now the thought is that the record increases in health care premiums are motivating Democrats to use "reconciliation", requiring only 51 votes, to pass such a plan.
One must be reminded how many times the Bush Administration used "reconciliation" to pass tax cuts and other initiatives, so there is nothing illegal about using that tactic. It is time to stop allowing obstructionists from passing what a majority in every poll indicates they want--health care with a public option.
Maybe, who knows, when health care passes, after the fact, we might have Republicans taking credit for it, as they have, hypocritically, taken credit for economic stimulus programs that they opposed! 
LOL
The Republican Hypocrisy: Is It Not An Embarrassment?
The Republican party in Congress is showing itself to be totally hypocritical to the extreme!
The GOP refused to support the economic stimulus bill, but is now taking credit for any projects that are taking place in their districts.
The Republicans in the Senate, at least some of them including John McCain, supported originally the idea of a deficit commission to deal with the national debt, and then voted against their own proposal!
The Republicans in both houses complained that they were not being consulted by President Obama on the health care bill, and they insisted that such negotiations must be televised on C Span. Now they seem to be trying to avoid the upcoming White House conference on health care, and feel that televising it will be promoting political theater!
These are among the many examples of total Republican hypocrisy, even by such senators, besides John McCain, as Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. A lot of it is due to pure politics, to win races such as Hutchison for Governor in Texas and McCain for Senator in Arizona.
What is more important than anything apparently is politics and winning races or keeping their seats, than principle and doing what is best for the country.
It is ironic that the Tea Party people seem more angry at Democrats than Republicans, even though Democrats are attempting to bring change and reform to the nation, while Republicans, who messed up the economy when they controlled Congress, are still demonstrating no interest in doing anything to cooperate in the midst of an economic crisis.
Senator Evan Bayh Leaving Congress, Condemning Its Paralysis
It was a sad moment today when Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, a moderate liberal, announced he would not seek re-election after twelve years in the Senate, out of frustration and anger at the intransigence and paralysis that Congress has developed into during the past few years, and its basic inability to get anything done for the country.
Bayh may yet run for Governor again in Indiana, as he was in that office in the 1990s before going to the Senate. He indicated his desire to do public service for the people, but sees the legislative branch as in total disarray and gridlock, which disgusts him.
While claiming that the extreme left and the extreme right were both responsible for the disaster that Congress has become, Bayh did make clear that the final straw was when seven members (Republicans), who had agreed to work toward creation of a commission to deal with deficit spending and the national debt, ended up voting against the legislation they had co-sponsored!
This forced President Obama's hand, making him create such a commission by executive order.
It is therefore clear that it is the far right, and really the Republican party, which has destroyed any camaraderie in the Senate, as they prefer the failure of the Obama Presidency over what is good for the country.
When a party wins control, they are entitled to operate the government by their ideas, but with the occasional cooperation and support of opposition party members, but that is not the case now, and the Senate filibuster has become totally destructive, with more use or threat of use of the filibuster in the past 14 months than in any past period, including the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s.
So we are losing top people like Evan Bayh, and one has to wonder will we be fortunate enough to have new senators on the level of quality that Bayh represented.
This is a low moment in Senate history, with good people deciding to bow out, and mediocrity reigning supreme!
The Growing Number Of Independent Voters: Not A Smart Move!
Disillusionment with the economic conditions of America have led growing numbers of Americans to abandon their party loyalty and registration in the Democratic and Republican parties, and to register instead as Independents.
This is supposed to be a good thing, as it indicates separation from the two major parties. But in actuality, it is NOT a good thing, as it decreases a voter's opportunity to affect political change.
This concept going around that an "Independent" or third party can somehow win over enough support and revolutionize the party system we have had since 1854, when the Republican party was created, is a fallacy, as our political system has never allowed for such a concept, certainly not for the White House, and only very rarely for a seat in Congress or a Governorship.
One can count on the fingers of both hands the number of independent candidates for office that have been elected. We can think of Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent Socialist who managed to be elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate as a true independent.
We can think of Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who most recently beat out a Democrat and Republican to retain his seat.
We can remember Governors Angus King of Maine, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, but all were actually party members who broke with the party and won a three way race.
There are a handful of other people who at some point were elected on an independent or third party line, but after being identified as a Republican or a Democrat in earlier elections. These include three senators who were part of the group that I wrote about in my book TWILIGHT OF PROGRESSIVISM: Senators George Norris of Nebraska, Robert La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin, and Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota--all during the New Deal era of the 1930s.
As far as the White House, the closest any third party or independent candidate has gone is Theodore Roosevelt, former Republican President running as a Progressive in the 1912 election, winning six states, 88 electoral votes, and 27.5 percent of the vote.
So the thought that an "Independent" party or candidate is the future of American politics is just a dream. It will not happen, and by people abandoning the major parties in their registration, they actually are cutting down their voting power by half, as in most states, they cannot vote on Primary Day, and therefore only can vote for the choices made by Democrats and Republicans who have stayed with the party and tried to bring change from within.
So, truthfully, the move toward independent voters is actually based on ignorance of the realities of our political system. How it will play itself out on Election Day 2010 and 2012 is anyone's guess!
Democrats’ New Strategy: Force Votes That Will Show Republican Support Or Intransigence
The Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress are adopting a strategy to force the opposition Republicans to make a decision: support legislation on various matters, or be recorded as against the legislation and make it a case against the party in the upcoming Fall elections.
While there is hope that bipartisanship will occur, particularly at the scheduled White House summit on health care on February 25, the plan is to promote legislation on some aspects of health care, a job creation bill, legislation to lift the anti trust exemption for insurance companies, action to help small businesses and extend unemployment compensation, and a measure to levy fees on Wall Street banks that received bailout money.
There are hints that some GOP senators might join the Democrats on some legislation, including Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
At the same time, the Democrats in the House of Representatives face the fact that there are now two vacancies of members who supported the health care bill, when it passed 220-215 last fall. Robert Wexler left in January and John Murtha died last week, and neither seat will be filled until the spring. And Joseph Cao, the one Republican who voted for the health care bill, now indicates he will not support the bill on later passage if it comes up for a vote, so the House probably does not have a majority for the bill at this point.
So the Democrats are trying to figure out a strategy to gain action in both houses, but the road ahead is still very complex and difficult. It is hard to see any great prospect for action anytime soon!