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

Francis Poretto, the Curmudgeon, takes us all to task for not understanding politics:

Nothing shakes the crowned heads of America’s kingmakers like a sense of connection between a sitting president and the general public: “Why, he might cease to cater to us and start heeding the cries of the great unwashed! We could lose our seats on the gravy train! This must be stopped at once!”

He’s right. We are often lemmings when it comes to politics. It is the primary reason I don’t identify myself as a member of either major party. I have donated to the Bush campaign, but when the Republican Party calls asking for a donation, I tell them I don’t donate to groups, just individuals. Any money I donate to the RNC may end up funding someone whose candidacy I don’t support, such as Alan Keyes. That’s not a slam at Keyes as a person, but he has no business running for office in Illinois. Nor did Bobby Kennedy or Hillary Clinton have any business running in New york.

But our own “elite” want the country run as they see fit. Both parties are guilty, but the Democrats carry the main load. And please, don’t give me this “for the rich” argument about the Republicans. It just ain’t true. Teddy Roosevelt broke that early in the 20th century. Ken Lay was not a creature of the Bush Administration. He donated to both parties, and spent at least two nights in the Clinton White House. Enron got the sweet deal in India through the good graces of Clinton’s Commerce Department. That deal fell through and Enron went bankrupt as Bush took office. Both parties depend on donations from the wealthiest of Americans.

It might interest you to take a look at the Website for the Federal Election Commission. The average individual donation for Bush’s 2000 campaign was $300. The average for Gore was over $800. Bush simply received more donations from “the little people” in this country. Both Bush and Kerry are running neck-and-neck this year, and with the Campaign Finance Reform laws in place the average has jumped to over $1000 per individual. Funny, I thought all that money was going away from the political process.

And BIG MONEY still dominates. Either more than ever, or more openly than ever. Aren’t all these celebrities millionaires? How about George Soros? The 527 organizations are spending lots of money. No, they can’t endorse a particular candidate (wink, wink). So all is fine, right?

This election is really shaping up to be a referendum on ourselves more than anything else. Do we really want a political class in this country, people whose entire lives are wrapped up in being a “member” of Congress or the Senate? They like to call it “public service”. Almost every politician I’ve dealt with in person as a non-constituent has acted as if I were supposed to serve him. Public service is doing volunteer work, not drawing a healthy paycheck and enjoying the perks of office. But the phrase sounds good and plays well to political groupies.

Thomas Jefferson advocated term limits. I’ve never considered that a good thing. I’m beginning to change my mind.

I need a new soap box. I’ve about worn this one out.

***UPDATE*** Gary Aldrich has been through the Establishment mill himself, and can tell you about it.

How can you read Victor Davis Hanson’s latest and not nod your head in agreement?

You have already decided Chirac and Annan know best, and we should obey.

Hindrocket talks about the announced increase in jobs last month, and offers some insight into where those numbers come from. Fair enough.

I find it very strange, however, that people don’t react to hard numbers, but relative ones. How many times have we heard of an increase in profits by some company, or a decrease in dividends paid, or an increase in unemployment, and then heard, “Less than analysts expected,” or, “More than anticipated.” And this difference between what was predicted and what actually came to pass was hailed as a success or failure.

If, in this case, the number of payroll jobs increased, is that not a good thing? Why is it bad because some clairvoyants got their prediction wrong? If profits are down, but they are down less than anticipated, aren’t they still down?

Sounds to me we should be chastising those who predicted incorrectly rather than patting them on the back then talking about how terrible things are because something didn’t perform as predicted.

What an odd society we’ve become.

Wallace picked up on an article by Ben Stein. All of you know Ben, you just may not know his name. Any movie you’ve seen in the last dozen years or so with a monotone high school teacher featured his talents. He is also one of the best stock analysts around, and even had his own televison show at one time.

I can’t say more than Ben, or better. His article is a fine follow-up to my own post earlier this week.

I know you’ve all read John Ray’s monograph on leftism. C’mon, you know you must have. I asked you to do so some time ago.

He just posted THEORIES OF RIGHTISM. It is also lengthy, and I haven’t been through the whole thing…yet. Like all his work, it is amply documented and referenced. Just a quick taste of his thesis:

My submission is that what modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are can be traced right back to the invaders (Angles and Saxons) from coastal Germany who overran Romano-Celtic Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, consultative, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized, consultative system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it. So conservatism in English-origin countries is simply Anglo-Saxon traditional values.

Sarah pointed me in the direction of Avery’s blog. It looks pretty interesting.

Think I’ll keep an eye on what he has to say. This post is a take on the “Blacks must be Democrats” theme from a different perspective.

Thank you, La Shawn, for pointing out a very interesting article I would have missed had you not seen it, first. And I also enjoy your thoughts on it.

Now, the rest of you are wondering what in the world I’m talking about. Tom Junod wrote an excellent piece for Esquire on the Case for George Bush. He has done his homework well. He doesn’t like Dubya at all, but thinks he is absolutely right in his desire to fight terrorism.

I will say no more about it. I’ll let La Shawn and Tom speak for themselves. They both do it quite well, you know.