Watergate, Contragate, Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Monicagate, Chinagate, Katrinagate, Lawyergate, the whole Obama administrationgate. The last one was just made up on the spur of the moment but it works. Politics, no matter what party, has always been filled with scandals, controversies, and corruption. It's not new but over the last few decades the problem is getting bigger. Although not the most trustworthy site (yet, still interesting and more reliable than what people think) the following has a list where you can check out scandals throughout the existence of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States. One will notice that in the early years that not many scandals happened and then when you hit the 1970's, it's happens everywhere. Sure, there were less politicians back then (perhaps that's a good thing) and the numbers would naturally be smaller. Sure, we deal with more problems in the world today causing some to do things they would not normally do. But this rate is alarming and should make us all think that character in a candidate should be considered and not just their reputation. Charisma does not mean good character. A nice smile, large ears, swagger, articulation, former beauty queens do not equal good character. Doing the right thing, even in tough times shows good character. Doing the right thing so there will be no question about morals shows good character. Doing the right thing even though you get nothing out of it shows good character. Doing the right thing so others will not be hurt by your actions shows good character. However, if it is their private life, should they still be judged in character?
Here are the results from last month's poll: Should government leaders resign if they have been caught doing something questionable in their private life?
- 50%- yes, if it effects the rest of the country.
- 41%- depends on what the act was.
- 8%- yes, no matter what.
- 0%- no, it's their life.
Half of us say they need to go. Yet, there is only about a 10% change in Congress and that is mostly by retirements. These are the voters who do not understand that what they do always effects the rest of the country. They will keep on voting for the incumbent. Why do we keep electing them? Why do we keep putting people like Charkles Rangel (head of the House Ethics Committee) back in office? The man was convicted on 11 counts of being unethical! And he failed to report some of his income. Why Tom Daschle? The man evaded income taxes up to over $150,000 while voting to raise taxes when he was in office. Why do we keep putting people like Tom DeLay back in office? At least DeLay resigned. Rangel??? Censured by congress...whoopee! Jim Traficant back in 2002, not only refused to resign, he ran for office from his prison cell. Perhaps so he could save the taxpayers time.
A little less than half said they should resign if the action calls for it. These are the people who are afraid that their candidate will get caught or has been caught and are afraid to take a stand. The question then becomes, "what calls for it?". Answer: anything that only effects the other political party. Wrong answer.
Less than 10% said they need to resign no matter what. These are your hard core people who are fed up with government completely. Sounds like a good idea. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
Not one person said they should stay in their public job. Which means we are all effected somehow by their actions. Or at least we feel we are effected. Maybe we are all sick of them.
