When this situation occurs, as it regularly does, the public constantly finds itself debating hairsplitting, obscure theories of moral relativism --- but right or left, there is no question that adultery lacks party affiliation. It’s driven by power lust, or just plain lust, not political stripes. But what's the common thread, besides a complete lapse of judgment and perception of untouchability? Answer: they're all men. So should we be electing more women instead?

When it comes to females and elected office, it's typically about power, not sex. There are most certainly exceptions, and women absolutely aren't immune to cheating, but when is the last time you saw a pant-chasing woman politician admit to soliciting sexual services? Or one caught hopping a jet to South America to visit her Latin lover? The DC Madam's client list gone public didn't exactly have the Lindy Boggs women's lounge in the US House hiding for cover. Yes, Diane Feinstein likely faces jaw-dropping documents at her desk everyday. A Chippendale’s calendar is not one of them.

Men are genetically engineered to think about sex more than women. You don’t need a scientist to expound. Think of all the surveys and studies (or just think about your boyfriend or brother). Drug companies spend billions on drugs like Viagra for a reason. Playboy circulation: 2.5 million. Playgirl: zero (it went all web due to financial troubles). Now add power to that equation and you have aforementioned list of offenders.

Women morph into totally different creatures when granted authority. We get thick-skinned. Bossy. Bullying. Borderline masculine. We turn into Barbara “call me Senator,” Boxer, not Bill “call me daddy” Clinton. Women electeds don't typically have trouble keeping their zippers up, or their skirts down. We just have trouble. Period. And pun intended.

Which brings me to my next question:

Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate.

It’s true there are a disproportionate number of men in office than women. (For the record, I’m not debating the law of averages). However, there are more women in office than ever and still no salacious soap opera like sex scandals.

In fact, a 2008 Pew Research Center study shows that “when it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other character traits the public values highly in leaders, they rate women superior to men.” When asked who makes a better political leader, 69 percent said men and women equally make good leaders (21 percent said men make better leaders, six percent said women) yet men still hold a majority of positions of power. Baby pressures and ole boys club aside, what gives?

Females arguably work twice as hard to achieve power than men do, even to this day. If we're smart but also attractive they call us bimbos no matter where we went to college, how many degrees we have, or how many languages we speak. If we're tough they call us bitches. Emotional equals weak. Passionate? Critics' code for crazy. And no matter what we look like you can bet we're getting scrutiny from both genders on our hair and wardrobe. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Would anyone argue they had it easy?

By the time women have risen to a position of power, we’ve invested far too much to blow it on prostitutes and private jets. We’re more careful with what’s at stake. Our intuition and perspective is driven by leadership, not libido, respect, not raunch.

Male or female, every elected official has the duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but when it comes to bedroom behavior, the guys consistently get it wrong. Would more women get it right? To sum it up: is the sad status quo more evidence that spatial judgment in government is desperately needed? Will high heels eliminate the real heels? Uncle Sam out, Aunt Samantha in? I’m just asking.

In the last two weeks we've seen President Obama endure treatment that he isn't exactly accustomed to: harsh criticism from his own party, a significant slip in the polls, and unfavorable headlines instead of glowing, inflated puff pieces. It seems that biting off more than he can chew when it comes to health care, government intervention into the private sector, and ballooning deficits have left him choking in what might be the first major sea change as his policy positions have started to eclipse his personal popularity.

Reality is creeping onto front pages everywhere. The Wall Street Journal recently reported "Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow Obama's Agenda;" Politico's above the fold headline trumpeted "Obama Health Care Plan Imperiled;" and the CBS News/New York Times poll inspired this headline in the paper: "Poll Finds Unease with Obama on Key Issues."

The Times specifically found "a distinct gulf between Mr. Obama's overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results."

However, that faith is diminishing.

Though Obama's personal popularity hasn't plumetted (yet) but there are signs it's starting to suffer. According to last week's Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, "Thirty two percent of the nation's voters now strongly approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34 percent) strongly disapprove -- giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That's the President's lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama." Health care seems to be Obama's toughest challenge yet, and the impetus for the awakening. There are some political maneuvers that would that prevent politicians from being able to thread the needle and health care is one of them. If the public wasn't paying attention before, they are now as health care affects every single American. Obama's mantra might be change, but when it comes to individual's medical treatment, change isn't usually embraced. Especially change that's arrived this quickly, and is so costly and drastic.

The Obama administration has yet to tell us why the government can successfully run universal health care when we can't even run the socialized health programs we already have in place: Medicare (which is hemorrhaging money) and Medicaid (which is putting many states in the red). As new reports surface that Obama lacks the support in Congress to pass this behemoth bill, expect it -- and his popularity numbers -- to fall apart, and fast. Look for a White House that will begin to scale back expectations. Still, the lack of details and support will likely quickly trigger a collapse in confidence.

When the economy is in a recession, when spending is already out of control and when inflation is rising -- not even a popular president can ram through reforms at rapid pace. Without the protection from his own party, the support of a patient public and a complacent media with a man-crush, the politician who has been billed as "untouchable" will soon be revealed for what he is: an amateur who lacks the credible answers and ability to really lead. In other words, the honeymoon is almost over, history will point to health care as the reason.

President Obama is feeling the heat lately for his limp foreign policy postures, showcased now more than ever with the increasing violence and chaos following Iran’s presidential election. Surprisingly, the critique is stemming from both sides of the aisle and is beginning to crescendo. Since the announcement of Ahmadenejad’s victory, Obama’s response has been more than unimpressive, it’s been plain impotent. If Iran is the ringing red phone, Obama is putting the call straight to voicemail.

Apparently in this administration, forceful, timely responses have been reserved for houseflies instead of our most threatening enemies.

The president believes that we shouldn’t “meddle” when it comes to Iran (or anyone else for that matter). Obama doesn’t want to appear like he is directing the protests; but even so, the Iranian government has already accused America of “interventionist” statements. Remind me again why democracy promotion is such a bad thing?

President Obama: you aren’t the leader of some insignificant Caribbean territory. You are the leader of the free world.

The world expects you, like your predecessors, to lead. But the global community is quickly learning not to hold its breath. In mere months, Obama has transformed the United States of America from the world’s policeman to the world’s cheerleader. We’re now the Mr. Rogers of foreign relations. Even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are urging Obama to toughen up.

How can someone so quick to meddle in private domestic enterprises — from insurance to banking to the auto industry — remain so hands off when it comes to our national security?

Iran needs some major meddling. The same goes for North Korea. In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, North Korea is seen as a bigger threat than Iran, China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — surpassing Iran by a more than two-to-one margin on voters’ worry list.

The scariest part about both is that the two countries are intrinsically linked. Though the administration insists it’s keeping an eye on Iran, Iran is watching North Korea and how we deal with them. We deal with them through the Chinese. Problem is, our leverage with China is limited considering that they hold the bulk of our ballooning debt. Plainly put: if the North Koreans decide to sell a nuclear weapon the likely customer will be from Tehran. That is why sitting on our hands and spending our nation into an economic choke-hold will result in unprecedented American vulnerability.

This is one “holy crap” moment that photo ops and late night talk show appearances can’t fix. It’s time for the Obama administration to swat down stubborn, rogue regimes and anyone who seeks to threaten our safety. That’s what I call real pest control.

A growing media bloodsport seems to be emerging: From Perez Hilton to Playboy’s “Conservative Women Hate List” to David Letterman’s lewd comments about Sarah Palin, it appears that attacking women – specifically conservative women – is not only all the rage, but oddly, acceptable.

I’m not talking about attacks from bottom feeder leftist blogs either. Notable mainstream brands like the Miss USA Organization, “The Late Show” and Playboy magazine have all lost their sense of humor and their sense of decency by allowing conservative women to become a punching bag — and a punch line — for the left. Forgoing all boundaries, a party that once used to claim to own the violence against women issue has embraced it and let their politics run them when it comes to the issue of misogyny.

On its face, this isn’t even a political issue. It’s a women’s issue –- a human issue that transcends politics. But why, when it comes to the most serious and sensitive attacks against women the National Organization for Women spokeswoman warrants a missing person’s report?

Carrie Prejean was called the most offensive four and five letter words by Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s after she expressed her traditional views on gay marriage. Was he scolded by one of the organization’s owners, Donald Trump? Hardly. Trump actually expressed willingness to allow Hilton to judge at next year’s competition.

And that’s just the beginning. Playboy magazine published a vile, incendiary list of conservative women it would like to engage in hate sex with, and it was only after public outcry that it pulled the article. Its response was watered down, to say the least. Where was that writer’s editor? (And that editor’s mind, moreover?) It doesn’t take an expert to know that the first stage of violence is thinking about it, then expressing it, then actually doing it.

David Letterman made a disgusting joke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s underage daughter and he didn’t stop there. He continued to make an off color joke about the Governor’s appearance making many want to invoke slaps but not against their knees.

Palin is apparently more popular than Letterman's pitiful, dysfunctional sense of humor. Thanks to growing pressure from viewers Letterman offered — not one — but two — mea culpas. But where was CBS from the start? It was only after the public got involved that the comedian began to react with some seeming sincerity.

But was it even sincere at all? It shouldn't have taken him two times to get it right and both aplogies were laden with excuses (something my mother always says "negates the apology in the first place"). Note the excuse: he meant to insult her older daughter. Frankly it's too late and the impetus wasn't guilt, it was the impending ratings dive and protests as a result of outraged females. In other words: money.

For the record, Palin should never appear on his show. Protests calling for his resignation should continue with a larger message to the general population and television executives everywhere: distasteful behavior against females of any age will not be tolerated.

The United States, a champion for women’s rights throughout the world, will have a tough time wagging it’s finger at countries that are less than progressive in their attitudes toward women and crimes against women all over the world when we tolerate hate speak at the expense of the American female, for a few laughs or fame, no less.

The First Amendment protects free speech but there is no reason that we, as citizens and consumers, should buy it. When it comes to those who want to disrespect any woman, we can take it to their bottom line and not only speak out, but also boycott their business.

Violence against women is wrong, no matter what party affiliation, not to mention it’s just not funny. The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.