It's sort of fascinating to me...

How, one by one, the Media annoints a white guy as the 'Republican front-runner', only to discover that, as the weeks go by, the new guy is exposed as either a raging hypocrite or, more frequently, shallow.

First Mitt Romney - he was the fresh, energetic, handsome guy who would rescue the GOP - now revealed as a pandering glamour-boy with no scruples.

Next Rudy - he was the strong-on-leadership-9/11 candidate, now revealed as thoroughly corrupt and mean, to boot.

Next Fred Thompson - he was the 'charismatic' plain-speaking, just-us-folks Everyman, now revealed as dense and mostly disinterested.

So who comes riding into the lead? Huckabee, currently vaulting into the front-runner slot, a God-fearing speaks-his-mind Man of God, who has God on his side, and benefits from the advice of God, and did I mention God? Now, not only are the vultures pouncing on the unpleasant facts of his actual record, but today, it is revealed that Huck was asked yesterday to comment about the uproar over the Iran NIE, and that topic was news to Mikey.

One by one, they are all exposed as hopeless hacks, no better than the shameful W they are hoping to succeed (so to speak).

Who's left? John McCain, who, I'm beginning to feel, may actually come out on top, since nobody cares enough to attack him (for now).

And now a word about political dynasties.

Yes, it's bizarre how some families have made political office the family business, but it's always been that way, and, I think, goes back to our species' acceptance of hereditary tribal chiefs. It was thus a hundred-thousand years ago, it was thus in every human society.

This tendency has frequently brought us leaders-with-familiar-names who rose to the demands of the times and performed great service (think Franklin Roosevelt). On the other hand, we have the obvious W, finally fulfilling the promise that was unfulfilled by his less-than-brilliant ancestor, Franklin Pierce (did you know that Barbara Bush was a Pierce?).

Would Bush be where he is today if his last name wasn't Bush? Probably not.

Would Hillary be where she is today if her last name wasn't Clinton? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Would Gordon Smith be where he is today if his last name wasn't Smith (yes, the same Joseph Smith who founded Mormonism)? Maybe not, but the fact that the other side of his family is the (mostly Democratic) Udalls, there's the family business again.

Let's all admit that we love our dynasties, and we cede to them the prerogative to rule over us. I'm not sure whether that's simple laziness, mass hypnosis, or that inbred instinct to recognize the familiar and reject anyone whose last name has more than two syllables and/or an uncomfortable number of consonants, sort of like 'Kucinich'.

Just sayin'.