A couple more squirts o' kerosene on the Spitzer fire. Just my own thoughts:

First, the way this went down, I'm more than ever strongly inclined to believe that the administration and its vast unsupervised domestic spying operation will not hesitate to poke around -- as Nixon did, but more so and with far better tools -- into the affairs of its opponents.

Once it spies on you and digs up some dirt, the Bush excavation machine has leverage over you that it doesn't even need to bring into play to coerce cooperation. If
you're an elected official who is careful and has a skeleton or two lying around, you won't do anything to
seriously oppose the administration.  If you're all too human AND foolishly fearless, you eventually go the way of Spitzer.  And, if you're clean, well, they'll just manufacture some dirt, as in the case of Gov. Siegelman, and shove you down the sluice ramp.

This incident, in short, arguably helps to explain why some Democrats just can't seem to get up their dander against the current hegemony.

Second (and almost as revealing), I find it
very interesting that the construction of the news reports didn't say
that Spitzer hired a prostitute or that he hung out with a call girl. Rather, the headlines (prompted, perhaps, by the constructions of someone in the government
who leaked all this) were to the effect that Spitzer had "ties" to a
"prostitution ring." Sounds as if he were an investor or a pimp overlord of some kind, rather than a mere customer. Now, Sen. Vitter got some of this treatment as well, but it wasn't -- in my opinion -- of similar caliber. If you're a French or Greek officeholder who has openly dallied about, you have to be very amused by all the righteous fuss, from a country that meanwhile explains with a straight face that torture is only torture when we don't do it.

Beyond that, the background to this nudge-nudge, wink-wink form of public scrutiny includes the spectacle of former Rep. Charlie Wilson (yes, a Democrat, though a Texas blue-dogger), being turned into a fictional version of himself in a big Hollywood movie, and all but celebrated for his own sexual exploits. It's presumably okay though, because he was an anti-communist and, well, such an engaging rascal, of the Dubya kind.

No wonder the country is dysfunctional. The moral relativism that the right uniformly decries is in fact leavened by their own brand of special, targeted moral relativism, as in the case of Spitzer versus Vitter.  Spitzer? He must go at once! Vitter? Well, we'll be getting around to that, maybe, one of these days.

Don't get me wrong. Spitzer screwed up and, given his crusader credentials, he's probably and rightfully toast.

And yet, after one celebrated Democrat joins the  ethically and/or morally challenged ranks -- mostly peopled in recent years by Republicans including ex-Speaker Gingrich, Rep. Hyde, Sen. Craig, Rep. Foley and others -- we have immediate calls from the GOP for his resignation. We have .... parity.

This false dichotomy is exactly what paralyzes the Democratic Party. The party is made up of human beings. They will, from time to time, make bad choices, precisely as GOP officials will.

However, unlike the GOP, just ONE bad choice by a Democrat will be enough to cook them all through. A pattern of such bad choices, by individuals and the GOP as a whole? All of that is neutered with one bad choice by one Democrat.

It works the same in public policy. Why are so many Democrats afraid to push back on Bush's call for FISA telecom immunity?  Because the GOP only needs one bad outcome to paint the entire opposition. If there is ever a terrorist event in which anyone could even suggest (even without evidence) that it wouldn't have happened with telecom immunity, then the Democrats are cooked.

Whereas, Bush and his ilk get to screw up over and over and over. Because, hey, while they're not perfect, we're obliged to treat them that way. Because, after all, they believe they're right. Self-righteous good intention (to the extent anyone believes that excuse) trumps good policy every time.