But if he can do the job, who cares? The only problem is if he cannot do the job.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I would agree if you could demonstrate that he was uniquely able to do the job, but I doubt that is true. On the contrary I believe that history supports my argument that it is a job that many people could do at least adequately. A proportion of them could do the job more than adequately. I would rather take a chance on the modest risk of a total screw-up like Carter than risk the voting public believing that some family may have a genetic propensity to leadership. That is the first step to accepting aristocracy.

No thank you. The history of the planet thus far recommends against that particular governmental form.

B

I would vote for the best person to do the job and not necessarily if he is with or against one camp. If I don't like Joe, I vote against Joe but his brother, mother, father or son is a different story. So what you are saying is that you would rather take a larger risk supporting someone else than having someone who is better but related to someone else in power just coz? Sounds like you would rather have the better man sit out because you are afraid of having a dynasty. Kinda makes me think of cutting the nose to spite the face.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

What I am saying is what I said: The history of the job indicates that most anybody who gets the job performs adequately. Adequately means good enough. The risk of dynastic families is tremendous. We could start with Egypt, work our way through Rome, jump to France, the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Spain, England, Scotland, China, etc. Dynastic empires evolve into oppressive autocracies and often with bloody territorial expansionist policies.

Even if the country starts as a republic, as Rome began. The siezing of imperial power by Julius Caesar shifted the senate from an oligarchic balance of power among competing family interests to one-family total dominance. Thus to me, none o fthem were especially honorable men, but Julius betrayed the senate and people while Brutus and Cassius merely betrayed Caesar.

In contrast, democracies (using the term in it's loosest possible context) do not have a history of territorial expansionism (except for imperial Athens), do not oppress their people and generally look for accommodation to resolve conflict rather than force.

Even when poorly guided a democracy self-rights within an election cycle or two or three. Dynasties generally have required either bloody murder, abdication, or natural death for a change of policy. Those are rarely easy transitions.

I will take a mediocre or even less than mediocre candidate over a family dynasty.

What is a dynasty? Is it one or two or three or four? Or the possibility of many in the future but only a couple of them now? I don't know. I haven't a rule for that. I know that I will not vote for another Bush or Kennedy in a national election for at least a generation. I would consider voting for a Roosevelt now.

Gotta cear the pipes.

B