Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

My consideration of the issues in this Presidential race takes a bit of a different turn from that of most people. I do share the concern about the continuation of our war on jihadists worldwide. But as big as that issue is, I think there is a fundamental tenet at work that most people are ignoring.

As little regard as I have for Senator Kerry, I don’t think he would be any worse as President than Jimmy Carter. My greatest fear is that his administration would simply be a Ted Kennedy Administration. Kennedy couldn’t get elected on his own. And, like Jesse Jackson, neither Kerry nor Kennedy really have any clue why they want to be President. They just do. Kerry will return to the philosophy of fighting jihadists through the courts, and the International Court as the mainstay. Wrong in all regards. Richard Holbrooke, his most likely Secretary of State, is a full-fledged internationalist. The UN will be our vehicle for foreign policy.

The real issue in this election isn’t the two personalities in the contest except as they mirror our internal conflict. Dubya is as centrist as you will ever see. He holds some very strong conservative views, yet appeals to some in the give-away culture we’ve built. Fortunately, he makes those give-away concessions with a conservative touch–ownership of yourself, choices for education, and a push for moving research back into the commercial arena. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs, not government. Kerry is the anti-candidate. Which is precisely what makes him appealing to a segment of our culture. He finds victims everywhere, and claims we are all victims of Dubya’s policies–both good and bad.

And this is the conflict this election represents. Are we to continue a path of personal ownership, or abandon ourselves to the decisions made for our “benefit” by our “betters”? A Bush win with a small margin will mean a continuation of the political sniping we’ve had for four years. And no, it was nowhere near this disingenuous suring the Clinton years. Dubya will continue to be plagued by the real ankle-biters in this country, people too small to work their way through a system they feel is stacked against them. MSM come to mind.

A Kerry win, on the other hand, will be vindication for the far left groups that have taken over the Democratic Party. This is my greatest concern. Legislation through judicial fiat and the drive to socialize every aspect of our society will appear to be within reach. And reach they will. As far as possible. There are very few people in this country who believe this would be a good thing. But that matters little. The extremists currently own the party. And they will expect payment after inauguration.

Actually, it may resonably be expected to be the end of their reign. There will be such a rush of activity to try and legislate their various agendas there will invariably be some internecine fighting which destroys some of the groups. Perhaps there is an up side to it all.

Really, then, this election comes down to whether we want to continue attempting to follow the Constitution, or Marxist social thought.

Perhaps it is time to standardize voter registration across the country. And as a first step, all voter rolls are to be purged completely. Every voter will have to register once again within the next year, and they must do it in person with photo ID. That identification will verify a birth certificate or naturalization papers. People will scream about disenfranchising one group or another. But every illegal voter who casts a ballot disenfranchises another, legal voter.

It’s no surprise that the Democrats are behind the latest effort in Wisconsin.

Democrats have consistently blocked Republican attempts to tighten these loopholes to protect election sanctity. Why? Because they

Yet another opportunity has come and gone. Mr. Allawi spoke to a joint session of Congress yesterday and offered the chance to meet and speak with the man who will continue to lead his country until at least January when elections are held. John Kerry couldn’t be bothered.

At first, I was disturbed that he felt being in Ohio was more important. Then I heard a report on the radio driving home that most of the Democrats in Congress played hookey. I’ve not been able to confirm that this morning.

Are they at all serious about any kind of international relations except donating money to fight a particular trendy “Disease of the Week” or propping up Kofi Annan and his ilk?

One of the things that always made me grit my teeth when dealing with Federal elected officials was the condescension they exhibited. I met only one or two who didn’t act like I should bow down before them. And I dealt with many during my military career. Congressmen are not in the chain of military command.

Elected officials are supposed to work for us. We are the bosses, and bestow a trust upon them to act in our stead.

George W. Bush understands this. John F. Kerry doesn’t. I don’t believe we need debate any further which is better qualified to be President.

Beyond all the discussion about whether John Kerry or George Bush will be better for this country, I believe it is necessary to look at what kinds of people each would appoint to positions of power and influence in their Administration. As with every election, this topic is not discussed in polite company, or in the normal campaigning.

We can look to President Bush to retain his current cabinet and primary advisors unless one or more of them decide to “return to private life to spend more time with my family.” I don’t see any of them leaving for any reason except a sincere desire to get out of the spotlight. In particular, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice shun the theatrics of politics, and prefer to simply do their jobs well. I feel Rumsfeld is a strong SecDef, although there are some who would like to see him gone. Perhaps he would want to leave also. I believe the departure of any one of these three prior to inauguration day would be a bad move and generate an “I told you so” mentality from their opponents. Perhaps McCain’s quasi-strong support of Dubya is predicated on the possibility of a high-profile position in the Administration in anticipation of a run for President in 2008. I can only see him as a possible SecDef, and not in any other position.

For Kerry, the list of wannabes is long and pretty uninspiring. First out of the chute would be Wesley Clark for Secretary of State or UN Ambassador. He is a logical Kerry choice given his experience as NATO Commander. I, personally, don’t think he handled that very well, but those in the Kerry camp (and Clinton’s) certainly see him as a player. Another general officer looking for a job in the Kerry Administration is Merrill McPeak. Whether Kerry trusts him or not remains to be seen. He is an obvious opportunist having first supported Dean when it looked like the good doctor had the nomination wrapped up, then jumped to the Kerry camp as Dean imploded. He could serve only one of two spots–replace Rice as National Security Advisor, or Rumsfeld as SecDef. I get a chill in my spine even thinking about it.

Expect some favorite of Al Gore’s to head the EPA. The Attorney General will be someone Edwards knows, possibly some young gun who’s made a reputation suing BIG companies. He/she will be in favor of prosecuting all manner of hate crimes and trying to destroy imagined monopolies.

The remaining spots will be filled with Clinton retreads or their previous subordinates in the Administration. Terry McAulliff and Ted Kennedy will have much to do with their selection. There will be a token African-American somewhere, although not in a truly significant position. The Democrats have eaten far too much Jim Crow since Bush placed Rice and Powell in roles of power for that to go unanswered. Health and Human Services comes to mind.

I’m curious what my Democratic friends out there think the lineup would be.

As I look at the political landscape this electoral season, I am reminded of the pitched battles that took place here in Texas over redistricting. The Constitution calls only for a census to be taken every ten years, and the Congressional districts realigned to match that census. Nothing more. Everything else returns to the States for implementation.

Gerrymandering is a tool of the political class in this country, and it flows for both major parties. In particular, it is meant to protect an incumbent, or to provide for an anticipated majority from one party or another in a particular district. In Congressional races, it has become almost prophetic–only four of the 435 incumbents were defeated in 2002.

Iowa is one state which has eliminated the politics of redistricting almost completely. Iowa now has five Congressional districts, all of which are competitive except for the western portion of the state. It is pretty solidly Republican. But that’s okay, because the districts were determined without any reference to the voting patterns, religion, or race of a particular area. The lines were drawn using some simple rules:

1 – population equality,

2 – contiguity,

3 – unity of counties and cities (maintaining county lines and