Political Dynasties

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 labelled 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?

That is a lame question! The answer is NEVER!

CHUQ