I remember back in the day when there was news of the USSR Politburo elections and there was a 7 or 8% turn over, the media would say how predictable and how fixed the elections were. Then I remember also when like Pakistan and India when daughters or spouses of countries leaders were “elected” it was somehow fixed.

But think about it! If Clinton wins the election we will have at least 25 years of Clinton and Bush. Would that fall into the category of a political dynasty? By most definitions, it would be a political dynasty, but for some reason it will be the desire of the people for this to occur. Does that then, mean that the ones labeled in the past we also as legitimate?

Now let us look at the Congress where about 95% were re-elected to serve, but yet in the USSR it was a fixed election when 93% were re-elected. Which is it?

All I am saying is that the American people are allowing these political dynasties to exist. Is it laziness? Or possibly stupidity? Just what is it that makes the continuation of these families to rule the country so appealing? When will the people realize this is not really in their best interests?

What will the future bring with these festering dynasties? After all Jeb Bush could have a shot. How about Chelsea? We are traveling along a dangerous path in my opinion. Where are the new ideas that will bring a change in the system? Not with the Clintons. The DLC has kept the same line and they are the heart of the Democratic Party. When Bill Clinton became president and moved the Dem Party to the right, new ideas became a dirty notion.

The American people are setting themselves up for generations of the same couple of families ruling the country. This is not my idea of how a democracy should work. If you are truly a voter looking for change and Clinton wins in November, they will be sadly disappointed. But then that is what you get when popularity, race or gender are the important things in a campaign. You will just have to live with it.

On Sat, 26 Jan 08, Obama buried Clinton in South Carolina. He got 54% of the vote, Clinton got 27 and Edwards got 18. yes he got the majority of the black vote, but he also cut across other lines as well. It was a great victory for him. His victory speech was just as aspiring as the one in Iowa. He is a helluva speaker. Edwards will continue, but for how much longer?

Now the Repubs will get their shot at immortality, on Tuesday 29 Jan 08 is the Florida primary. McCain and Romney are running neck and neck, with the winner most likely becoming the front runner. The best thing going for Romney is the crappy economy. He can use all his vague business rhetoric to help sway the voter. McCain will benefit from the amount of older retirees and the military presence in the state, it will assist him. Rudy……..is…….in a coma. If he does not do well in Florida he will be hard pressed to continue. Since he is lagging McCain in NY, he may decide not to be embarrassed in his home tuff and take a powder. Florida will be interesting to us political junkies.

And now for the real story. A week later is Super Tuesday, or Super Duper Tuesday or Tsunami Tuesday, that is when as many as 20 states hold their caucuses and primaries. The winners there will be propelled into the lead and everyone else will be looking at their butts. Who will be considered the leader or fav? It depends on how you want to look at it. Across the US different candidates will be favored depending on where the vote is. Delegate count now is becoming the most important part of the campaigns, so each candidate, Dem and Repub, will put their money where they think they can get the most delegates. The fun part will be to see who targets who.

29 Jan 08 is the event horizon and the losers will be sucking into the black hole that it is creating. To either be politically destroyed and to lie dormant waiting for the chance to escape oblivion.

Today will be historic in South Carolina, the voters have a three way choice of candidates. A woman, A black and a white guy, what more could they ask for? It will be historic no matter which way the votes fall. Then who could possibly be the loser? An interesting question.

Edwards if he does not win the votes could be in a pickle. he has vowed to carry on until the convention, but can he afford it. His message of economic populism is a noble call, but if the voter is not listening he may be out. He could try to influence the party platform at the convention, but that, IMO, is a bit of a long shot.

The real loser will be Obama. Why is that? If he wins, it will be spun that since SC is mostly black Dem voters race was the cause of his win. If he loses to Clinton, then it will be spun that he has no ears outside black voters. So the spin will be the thing to watch. Watch Bill after the primary. He will be the lead on the spin. Do not be fooled by the differences in the positions. There is little difference in their positions.

South Carolinians will choose between 2 very similar candidates or the economic populist. They could set the tone for the upcoming Tsunami Tuesday.

After the Repubs debate on Thurs past, Mitt seems to be jumping out in front, barely. But why? It is the economy stupid! As long as the war was the focus of the media then McCain and Rudy were the men. But now they are just there trying to find a hook on the economy.

Rudy without 9/11 is doomed! Unless he can find a way to link the economy to that disaster, and that would be a stretch that even Rudy can not pull off. Then there is McCain, without the war he is struggling. He even says that he is not the sharpest pencil in the box when it involves the economy. His support for the war and surge is past news; old at best. The voter is a fraid they are about to lose everything and the war is just a fleeting memory. McCain may be screwed and tattooed after the Florida primary.

Now there is Mitt. He has got to be jerking off for all he had was a lame vague stand on the economy and now that it has gone into the toilet, he is sitting pretty. Mitt would have been an also ran without the economy and now he is ‘Da Man”!

The problem is he is vague with little or no specifics. Hell, I could run on that kind of stand. Yes he ran business that were failing and made them solvent. But how? By cutting jobs, at is how. The company becomes more profitable and he gets the credit. And workers get hunger. His promises are just that promises and will not be kept.

The voter will decide who will be president, and hopefully that will not be fooled by empty promises. Who knows? We can only hope. Mitt is looking good to a lot of Repubs. IMO, he still looks like a game show host.

Worldpress.org – World in Cartoons

This quote pretty much describes the Bush Legacy.

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. Japanese proverb

The best I can say is that they are acted like adults. There was none of the “in your face” tactics of the last dem debate. I will say that MSNBC let Romney have the most time on the air. It was a free ad. All the candidates were polite, civil and on message. Kind of like they were on automatic pilot. They were almost introducing themselves to the people of Florida. They all seemed to be saying that the Clintons were gonna be the candidate of the Dems and they were all running against them.

Ok who won–Mitt, because he was confident and on message looking very presidential. McCain was good but lack a little something. Huckabee was his usual humorous self and defended his stands very well. Rudy was flat and did not have a whole lot of substance. and then there is Paul. What can I say? Paul was Paul!

All in all a pretty good debate. At least there were no shots to the throat of their opponents. They basically looked a lot better than the Dems did on their last debate.

First, I wish I had come up with that tag, I think it is a great title. unfortunately, I am not positive who did name the Huckabee campaign that, but I will use it. Recently Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by Chuck Norris. And throughout the campaign he has been standing behind Huckabee smiling and grinning or glaring out at the audience.

Chuck has made a couple of appearance on talk shows with Mike and made the usual campaign rhetoric, but he has not had much to say otherwise. Chuck has just seemed to be there at the Iowa win as moral support. And it has been the same for most of the other speeches.

But last week, Chuck spoke on his own. This time he was talking a bout McCain if he was elected president. Chuck basically, said that McCain was too old and that if he were elected he would most likely die in office and be replaced by the veep.

Personally, I think that was uncalled for and in very bad taste. Also huckabee was on the stage when he said it. Hopefully, they will muzzle the jock and let Huckabee do the political talking; he seems to be a bit more accustomed to it than Norris.

Huckabee seems to be afraid of McCain just as GW was in 2000. But personal attacks by surrogates should be discouraged. No candidate should need to resort to this type of crap. If the candidate has to use personal attacks, I ask if they are truly a viable candidate. This applies to both parties. Personal attacks such as this just tells me that the candidate does not have answers to real problems, so they just try to make the opponent look inept or too old or…well you get the picture.