Mark then proceeds to decend into class warfare:
If you wish to pretend that, say, the daily lives of Hillary, Bloomberg, Edwards, Romney and Rudy are somehow "representative" of your lived day-to-day existence in any sense that normal people usually mean that word, good luck with that. For the rest us, more and more people have less and less in common with the "men of the people" who are allegedly the instruments of our self-government. I don't see what's conspiratorial about that. I think it's a natural result of the particular system we've created. We have a choice of oligarchs. We have largely abandoned *whether* we will be ruled by oligarchs. A quick survey of the net worth of the occupants of our high offices makes this a non-controversial fact. That's why it matters when McCain runs out of funding. No huge $$$, no high office. We don't live in a Capra film.
... I honestly don't get the surprise here. Does anybody seriously believe that you could be President without enormous financial backing from enormously wealthy people? Does anybody here seriously believe that the people who populate our political class in DC (either party) actually have a lot in common, on a daily basis, with the lives of the people they "represent"?
Come on! Reeeeeally? Do you seriously believe your average DC politico is thinking about how he's going to afford the plumbing job his house needs, or wondering how to get the kids to soccer practice when the exterminator is coming, or fretting about how to make the dental bill?
Probably not. However, for anyone to believe that a Washington polity that contains everyone from Tom Coburn to Ted Kennedy to Ron Paul to Mike Pence is some kind of homogenous bloc is an exercise in self-delusion. Moreover, as the last congressional election or the immigration bill painfully demonstrated for anyone who was paying attention, it isn't like the power-brokers in Washington can just do as they please without regard to the popular will. Even if one accepts Mark's formulation that we must choose between oligarchs, there is a marked difference between those that occupied Congress in 2006 and those that do so in 2007. To believe otherwise, once again, is an exercise in self-delusion.
And speaking of which, in response to this comment by Blackadder:
You passed over the most astounding part of the Buchanan piece, which was the suggestion that the Democrats in Congress aren't asking questions about the conspiracy to start a war with Iran because they are secretly in on it. That's just... strange. One might as well argue that 9/11 was planned and executed by Michael Moore.
It's completely bizarre, but it is consistent with what Buchanan has written in the past. He has long held that because (if I recall correctly) the Democrats removed a provision in a bill stating that Bush could not mount any kind of action against Iran without congressional approval. From the view of Buchanan (and apparently Mark), the Democrats are indeed complicit in Bush's plan to attack Iran.