Artful Dodger:

> However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC.

This is a serious problem is most western democracies, not just the USA. The rich and powerful use their money to influence policy makers. In most countries the winners of elections are those who advertise and campaign aggressively. It costs money to mount aggressive campaigns. Advertising is aimed at building up your own image while discrediting your opponents. Character assasination and underhanded tactices go hand in hand.

The rich and powerful know this, so they strategically donate money to candidates that will further carefully selected political and economic interests. Money becomes a tool to influence law makers.

Candiadtes have learned that a mixture of big advertising dollars and populism sells well at election time. Barrack Obama is a great example, as was Ronald Regan.

The situation is such that the candidates generally elected are those who spend the most on election campaigns. Campaign expenditures have risen election after election, to the point that now candidates are spending over a billion dollars during a presidential campaign.

Small political parties with new ideas are shut out completely. The playing field is not level and that means that the two dominant political parties completely choke small parties. Then both parties often represent competing political and economic interests and that leads to a political stalemate. The two parties are virtually unable to function without constantly trumping each other at every turn.

We have heard of Wshington being "dysfunctional". I think the main culprit is special interests and campaign donors that expect the money they donated to buy power and influence. Candidates that take no money have virtually no chance of being elected, and therefore cannot come in and bring change and new ideas.

The public craves change and renewal. Since the dominant parties are unable to deliver, people look for whoever can offer something new. Barrack Obama sold himself as a man who could bring change. I think that at least to some extent he was sincere in his desire, but failed on account of the much bigger and much more powerful machinery of money and hypocrysy.

The Tea Party is offering more transparency, a return to some traditional values of the past, and a more honest, open government. The big question is whether they can deliver. Unfortunately their front runners are people who grew up politically in the same system. Only time can tell whether they can break away from the "old boys club" mentaility and the pervasive presence of special interests and corporate meddling.