The SoapBoxers

As you know, I’m not an exclusive Soapboxers writer. Kosmo doesn’t pay me enough…or at all (insert donation button here, Kosmo). But, hey, we’ve known each other for a long time (I first met him when I was in HIGH SCHOOL), besides, he has given me a great place to voice my opinion, whether he agrees with me or not.

However, I was recently approached (or as they say “targeted” but I try to avoid aggressive rhetoric) with Yahoo! News to write a “blog sounding” article about Iowa politics. Yeah, that was right up my alley. So I wrote this. Just a story about me being an undecided voter in Iowa. It’s dangerous. Especially with phone calls at bed time. I almost said the candidate that doesn’t wake the kids gets my vote. But that’s not entirely true. So I didn’t write it. But almost…so I submitted the article, crossed my fingers and went about chasing a toddler who needed a diaper change.

And it got published. Color me surprised. So I was asked to write another blog post about a “timely news event”. What’s better than the Occupy Wall Street drama?? The other night I was staying up (way way) too late and got sucked into twitter. I suggested the Occupy Iowa people get a job. Apparently I hit a nerve. Someone I don’t know, who ISN’T an in-law created the twitter hashtag #antisarahbowman (when I’m not Crunchy Conservative, I go by that name). And that got me to thinking…wow. Either these people have nothing better to do than cyber bully and protest something they really don’t understand or….well, sleep outside on the lawn of the statehouse. But thank you, anti-Sarah Bowman people, for giving me a topic to write about. So I wrote this.

Again, I crossed my fingers and went to bed. Imagine my surprise this morning when I woke up and thought “Eh, I’ll see if Yahoo! News has posted my article yet?” And then I find 5 tweets, 54 Facebook recommends and 51 comments! Woah. I hit a liberal nerve. I have told my mom NOT to read the comments, because, no mom likes it when someone calls her kid a “F**king moron”.

So yes, twitter IS worth something…whether my husband believes it or not. If you want to know how I feel about the Iowa caucuses or the Occupy Wall Street “people” view the links. And comment…and re-tweet. And link back to this article. But not while you’re on the clock…and if you’re not on the clock and actually “occupying” somewhere? Get a job.

I think we all remember the time from our childhood playing games with that one kid who changes the rules in games. You’d be playing 4 man baseball and while your ghost runners could only take one base at a time, all of the sudden -when it suited him the most- he’d say his ghost runner was able to score from 2nd on a single. Or that game of tag would suddenly become freeze tag because he didn’t want to be “it” when you tagged him. That’s not unlike what’s going on right now with voting rules across multiple states.

A little pertinent history lesson: Right now with the US Electoral College system, the individual citizen doesn’t truly, technically, vote for the president. When you vote, you are, more or less, telling your state’s electors who you want to vote for president, and they in turn cast the actual votes that are given.  Since 1964 the United States has had 538 electors, with 270 of them being required to win the presidency (giving a winner with exactly 270 votes a 50.2% share of the vote). The theory is that in a Republic where states’ power is important, even a small population state can have an important outcome.

Currently, in 48 states, any presidential candidate winning the largest share of the votes simply gets all of that states electoral votes – a “winner take all” system. The 2 remaining states – Nebraska and Maine – essentially go by congressional district to determine who gets the individual elector’s votes with the remaining 2 elector votes in each state being decided by the overall popular vote of the state. It’s actually a fairly convoluted system that needs multiple constitutional amendments and stacks of state laws to function “correctly.” It’s not exactly a popular system, either, in both 2001 and 2004 the majority of Americans in a Gallup poll supported eliminating the electoral college system and going with a pure popular vote system.

Ok, got all that? If you find it interesting at all, there are many, many books and articles on it. As I said, only 2 states don’t use the winner-take-all system where the winner of that state’s popular vote gets all the electoral votes. In fact, not using that system is actually a fairly recent change. Maine moved away from it in 1972, and Nebraska in 1992 (gee, both election years. How strange). I’m not here to argue about which method is better, merely to point out that continuity in rules is fair. I personally think either all states should use the same method.

After the last presidential election, surely our most partisan and bitter election, Republicans in Pennsylvania decided that they didn’t really like ALL of their state’s 21 electors voting for who won the popular vote. Barack Obama won 54% of the popular vote yet he got every last one of those 21 electoral votes. The GOP there realized that by moving away from an all-or-nothing system when most states were not moving away from that system they are essentially giving votes to any Republican candidate. Pennsylvania would join Nebraska and Maine, making it 47 states that used one system and 3 states that used another.

But wait! Nebraska actually saw a vote for Obama in 2008. That’s rather astonishing for such a right-leaning state; Nebraska has only voted Democrat in 7 of the last 36 elections. But Republicans there are very aware that in such a partisan atmosphere every last vote counts, especially when there are only 538 votes. They’re actually looking to reverse their 1992 decision to leave the winner-take-all system. They want back in to get their one vote back.  Hmmm, put in the simplest of terms this really seems like the people in power are changing the rules to make it easier for their side to win. Imagine if where you worked suddenly everyone had to start paying for their own electricity used, but your boss turned around and said that since he’s in charge, he only has to pay 50%. You’d be pretty ticked off, huh?

The election tinkering actually doesn’t stop there. 14 states are looking at changing voting rules, ranging from cutting the time allowed for early voting, to requiring state-issued ID cards, to enacting laws that forbid anyone with a criminal history to vote – people who have justly served their time and are once again tax paying citizens. As a general rule, early voting has favored democrats. In fact, on election day in 2008, my current home state of North Carolina actually voted in majority for John McCain, but so many people used early voting to vote for Barack Obama that he won the election here – the first time in decades that North Carolina went blue. This isn’t a trend isolated to this state either. Demographic data shows that in almost every single state early voting came out for Obama, often with a wide margin.

In addition, early voting featured a much larger percentage of minorities than the overall voting population as a whole, and it is widely known that on average minorities vote Democrat. While I’m in favor of eliminating voting fraud – the usual excuse of those looking to implement state-issued voter IDs – fraudulent voting by individuals is less than .0001% of all voters.

To put that in practical terms, voting fraud is quite literally a one-in-a-million thing. Any given district is more likely to experience a mass shooting spree than have people try to cheat the voting system. It has been reported by multiple news organizations (almost any of the links above) that these new voting changes will disenfranchise 5 million voters. But hey, it’s worth it if we screw the 4,999,995 people voting to get those 5 cheaters, right? Well, that’s what the Republicans will probably try to sell you to your face, while in reality it’s done in the name of reducing the chances of Democrats winning. 

It’s ironic that a nation so bent on shedding light in other countries’ fair elections is so shady under its own surface. Remember that kid who would use the Monopoly board game house rule of getting money for landing on free parking when he landed on it, but then point out that’s just a house rule and say you got nothing when you landed on it? Yeah. That’s your modern Republicans.

Its Playoff time both in politics and baseball, are you paying attention?

The weather is beginning to cool, the leaves are falling, the MLB playoff games are occupying the networks (irritating my wife) and the political ads and debates have begun (again, irritating my wife).

Yes, it’s fall in the United States and we have just over one year until we vote for the new president of the United States. The Conservatives want to unseat Barack Obama making him a one term president and the Liberals are chanting four more years.

I believe that Obama has a really good shot at winning this election. I think he will definitely follow in George W Bush’s footsteps and serve the two terms that he is eligible for. After all, why wouldn’t he be elected? Think of all the successes his regime, I mean his administration has had:

• A drowning and failing economy
• Largest Federal deficit ever (2008 was $458 Billion while 2011 $1,645 Billion)
• Billions of dollars given to a companies like Solyndra that he believed were “exemplary” when they were really crooked and destined for bankruptcy. The emails WILL be released and will tell all.
• The closing (ok, actually not closing) of Gitmo
• The passing of the unaffordable Obamacarewhich has yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court for its Constitutionality.
• Trying Gitmo detainees in civilian US Courts rather than the military courts
• Joe Biden
• Iran is refining plutonium and readying to build a nuclear device. So much for Barack’s diplomacy that he felt would work. We delayed and missed the chance to destroy this facility.
• Did I mention Joe Biden?
• He promised that the $787 Billion Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%
• Eric Holder accused of lying about Operation Fast and Furious, special counsel requested to investigate
• Obama accusing Cambridge police of acting stupidly…really? You know what about officer safety?
• Jimmy Hoffa while introducing Obama speaks of Republicans and says that they need to “take these sons of bitches out”. Obama didn’t correct him?

There has definitely been a lot of hope and change over the last couple of years. I see the positive spin that Obama has put on things. I see that he has eliminated pork in bills, merged the gap between conservatives and liberals, gotten away from the unions and the party lines. Hope and change is abounding and who wouldn’t want four more years of this? The experience that Obama has in dealing with budgets, payroll, etc…those are priceless. His leadership has certainly kept a short leash on Joe Biden and he’s done an excellent job of foregoing expensive and unnecessary parties at the White House. He started with the most expensive inauguration party in history and hasn’t stopped.

My question is why would anyone want an experienced business man like Mitt Romney to try and get a handle on the economy? He has had four years of political experience serving as the Massachusetts Governor (enough to understand politics but not be an insider). Nahhh, why would we want an effective President?

What about Herman Cain? Cain worked at several large organizations such as Coca Cola, Pillsbury, Burger King and Godfather’s Pizza. He later worked for the National Restaurant Association (no, not THAT NRA) and served on the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve. What is the 9-9-9 plan anyway? Again, someone with fresh ideas that isn’t an insider and isn’t bought and paid for by the unions.

Maybe you’re right, maybe we should stick with the “hope and change” that someone elected in 2008 and forget changing things. Well, maybe we could change a few things, like the debt, the tax code, the new mandatory health insurance plan, Joe Biden, pork bills, lobbyists. Then again maybe I’m nuts!

What are you going to do in the Primaries? The first primary is (as of now scheduled for January 21^st) is just a few months away, who will you be voting for? Who has your eye for now? Please tell me it isn’t Barack Obama. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Squeaky…

Anyone but Obama 2012

This sticker can be found at the following website:

http://www.zazzle.com/anyone_else_2012_bumper_sticker-128098147264477395

With everyone, including Barack Obama, painting the sitting president as an underdog, I feel compelled to suggest that everyone is wrong. In fact, the Republicans can’t win – and here’s a candidate-by-candidate breakdown of why they will fail.

Sarah Palin – The rest of this article is intended to be taken as satire, but my words about Palin are my true beliefs.  I feel that she does not really want to be the president.  I think that she craves publicity, money, and power.  You can get this from the presidency, but you can also get it from the sidelines – and with far fewer restrictions on your actions.  You can even argue that a non-politician can influence voting patterns more than a president.  Who has done more the shape the ideology of the current Republican party  – George W. Bush or Rush Limbaugh?  I think Palin will continue to write books and continue to pop up on the TV – and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with her sliding into that role.  I don’t, however, see her as a serious presidential candidate.

Ronald Reagan – He’s dead and has already served two terms as president.  In spite of these obstacles, it seems that there are some in the party who feel that he’d be the best man for the job.

Mitt Romney – The most interesting thing about Mitt Romney’s first name is that it is not Mitt.  Yes, Willard Mitt Romney chooses to go by his middle name of Mitt rather than Will or Bill.  While this demonstrates toughness, especially in the face of schoolyard bullies, it does bring into question his decision-making process.

Herman Cain – Cain is unelectable, for one obvious reason.  He killed his brother, Abel.

Rick Perry – He couldn’t win the Iowa Straw Poll, even with his campaign being bolstered by TV ads from Stephen Colbert’s super PAC Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.  If you can’t win with Colbert Nation pushing you along, you certainly can’t win on your own.

Rick Santorum – He’s not even the most popular Rick in the race.  If Santorum can’t strong arm Google, how can he expect to force the legislative and judicial branches to do his bidding?

Michele Bachmann – First, there’s the name.  One L in Michele or two?  One N in Bachmann or two? Easier just to vote for Ron Paul.  Whenever I hear her name, I feel the need to take the 8:15 into the city.  Four years of Taking Care of Business stuck in my head would be four years too many.

Ron Paul  – Paul was the Pennsylvania state champion in the 220 yard run in high school.  Guess what, Ron?  The race to the White House is a marathon, not a sprint.

Newt Gingrich – Seriously, he’s named after a rodent.  Maybe Gopher Tillman or Squirrel McGee can run in ’16.

Chris Christie – Christie announced that he wasn’t going to run.  It’s probably for the best.  The GOP nominee in 2012 will likely try to sell themself as having new and original ideas.  It might be difficult for a guy with basically the same first and last name to hold himself up as the bastion of creativity.  Not that he named himself, but he has the genes of his parents.  (If you were hoping for some fat jokes, you won’t get any from me.)

One thing that really jumps out at me is all the candidates with first names masquerading as last names – Perry, Paul, and Christie (and Cain, if you’re old school).  I’m not sure what to make of this odd coincidence, except that it’s likely to be tied into the End of Days.

Now that the fall weather is here The Angry Squirrel has headed south to New Mexico. Or as I am also putting it, early preparation to quickly hop the border in the event of a Rick Perry Presidency.

All kidding aside, I am actually here for a job interview. So here is to hoping all goes well on that front. Although I am going to be missing the next all important debate today.

You know the one that Fox News is teaming up with Google to have people submit and vote on questions. Which in turn Fox News will completely ignore most of the top questions and just ask whatever it wants and make up shit as it goes. Kind of like their news coverage.

The more pressing issue for me though will be what will the Republican base show themselves to stand for this time around. Two debates ago it was cheering the execution of more people under any Governor in recorded history. Then last debate the death is something to cheer about continued with screams and yeahs along with thunderous applause when the question of society allowing a man without insurance to die. This was after Ron Paul had already referred to this situation as being what freedom is all about. Who knows maybe this time around they will cheer about grandma dying when her Medicare and Social Security are done away with by a President Perry.

Anyways, to conclude this months post I am gonna do something different. Let’s open the comments to ask and talk about questions we would like to see asked of the participants in tonights debate.
i
I’ll start off.

Newt, Why the hell are you pretending to be in this race still?

Or I could just do some joke with Santorum and Google since they are the co hosts after all.

I’m convinced that “jobs” is a four letter word in the Obama Administration. I can see it now. Barack stubs his toe on an end table and yells, “Oh jobs!” *giggles*

But in all seriousness, I find it interesting that he’s been the President for TWO AND A HALF YEARS already and JUST realized that jobs is an issue. Either that or he “hoped” that things would “change” without him having to do anything.

And yet, he did have to do something. So he did what he does best….the only thing he ever does. He gave another speech.

Now, those who voted for Obama who are upset with him and his performance, I don’t feel sorry for you. You elected a man because he gave good speeches….are you at all surprised that it is all he’s done thus far?

Back to the jobs bill. During the speech Obama kept saying “pass it” and to be honest, it had a little bit of an Obamacare feel to it. Do we need to pass this bill to before we can know what is in it? I don’t like it. Not one bit.

Here’s what I know. The Government can’t mandate that people hire. Only the people can hire. When people have more funds to hire, they hire. And that’s where this “income adjustment” aka taxes comes in to play. Keep taxes low, people have more of their own money, with more money they can hire more people, more people working means more money in the economy…it just makes common sense.

Then again, common sense is something this Administration is severely lacking.

I love watching the Liberals start freaking out about 2012. Unless Obama does something big–and I mean really, really big, he’s not going to win. America has had enough and, like I said unless something really big changes, we’ll have moving trucks in front of the White House in January 2013. But hey, that’d be a few jobs Obama could take credit for creating!

I hope you all enjoyed my live tweeting of the straw poll and the GOP debates. If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, be sure to follow @SoapBoxersLive on twitter.

My timing might be off on the article subject this month, as people might think I’m talking about the often controversial, usually brilliant former Apple Computer CEO.  I’m not.  Everywhere I tune in people are talking about how this economy boils down to jobs.  Too many people are unemployed, which leads to too few people paying taxes and spending money, which leads to layoffs in the public sector, which leads to more people being unemployed, which leads to more people not paying taxes and spending money, which leads to … well, you get the idea.

Back in the 1980’s “Trickle Down” was the term for how Republicans wanted to run the economy.  Their theory is that if you give tax breaks to the richest people those people will turn around and hire some non-rich folk.  Think of it like watering your plant, you pour the water on the plant and the water dribbles all down, into the soil, and makes everything in the area go to varying degrees of wetness – it “trickles down” over the whole area.  Trouble is, the economic theory doesn’t work like that.  It doesn’t really work at all, actually, so much so that Republicans have taken to calling it “Supply-Side Economics.”  Trickle down has that whole male urination connotation, “Supply-Side” sounds so much more business-like, so much more professional.  Too bad over 70% of the money that factors into GDP is because of consumers. The economy is consumer driven, so the real-world theory should be “Consumer-Side Economics.”

What does consumer driven mean?  Well, it means that the people who buy the bulk of stuff – everything from houses and cars to televisions and appliances to diapers and toys – are running 70% of the economy.  70% of the money that factors into GDP is because consumers – the bulk of which are everyday Americans – bought stuff after getting paid by their job.

One of the favorite current conservative talking points is that businesses aren’t hiring because they’re stifled by regulation and taxes.  As far as taxes are concerned, theoretically, that’s true.  Reality has a different view, however.  Using loopholes and tax breaks the richest of corporations can often avoid paying no taxes at all – GM didn’t pay a dime in taxes in 2010 despite having over 14.2 billion in profits.  The truth of the matter is businesses aren’t hiring because people aren’t buying.  People aren’t buying because so many are unemployed or underemployed, and the media has scared many into saving rather than spending.  While that’s not a bad thing, everything needs to be in moderation.  Saving for the future is fine, but not at the cost of the now.

So is government regulation the problem?  The 2008 Wall Street crash was because of a lack of regulation.  The 2011 Fukushima Nuclear disaster was because of a lack of regulation enforcement.  Bankers taking home billions in profits after getting billions in bailouts while the middle class saw nothing was because of a lack of regulation.  Say what you want about the government, but at least in theory I trust profit-driven corporations a lot less than I trust government.  I say “in theory” only because the current campaign finance laws and political atmosphere allow corporations to essentially buy politicians.  In addition, if government regulation is the problem, why are big oil, the finance sector and many other important economic players reporting record profits the past few years?  I don’t think Reagan making deregulation one of his biggest issues and the start of economic disparity in the US is a coincidence.  Corporations have proven time and time again that they will put profit ahead of anything, including the well-being of people.  You can argue that corporate charity does exist, it often does so only because tax breaks and good publicity make it economically practical to do so.

So jobs are the problem, what’s the solution?  I’m going to put one forward that all you right-wingers out there will completely balk at:  Government spending.  This flies in the face of the debt reduction debate this past Summer, but our country has faced bigger debt before and we spent our way out of it.  The power grid and transportation networks in the US are laughable, at best, compared to many other nations.  A government-wide sponsored program to rebuild/replace either of those two would employ millions for years – millions of people who would start spending again.  I’m sure conservatives will ask how can we possibly pay this off?  Well, eliminating the outsourcing of our wars would help.  It was recently reported that as much as 60 billion dollars was wasted or defrauded thanks to so-called “private military contractors.”  As far as the big-picture is concerned, take a look at any finance news the past few months – US debt is selling faster than ever.  The yield on treasury bills is at an all-time low, which means anyone with money is still scrambling to buy US debt.  If we had a debt problem, doesn’t free-market economics dictate that T-bills would be a bad buy?

Tonight President Obama is going to present a jobs bill, and no matter what he says Republicans will oppose it out of partisanship.  The number one way Republicans will take control of the White House in 2012 is for the economy to suck, so why is it in their interest to help the economy get better?  Like drooling, greedy shareholders they are slaves to short-term profit, and creating jobs just doesn’t mesh with their current goals.

The last several years we’ve been plastered with a push for everything green. We are asked to stop receiving bank statements and bills via paper in the name of going green. We have green micro size cars that plug in and will drive 75 miles on a single charge, SUV’s are bad in the name of green, we are losing normal incandescent light bulbs in the name of green and soon we will have to use CFL’s in the name of green.

Another enormous push the last couple of years (since the stimulus) has been the creation and promotion of green jobs. The stimulus funneled roughly $70 Billion to the energy economy most of which was to green energy.

Personally, I’m willing to make some green concessions, I recycle (most of the “stuff most of the time), I bought a kegerator so I’m not creating the can and bottle waste that all you other beer drinkers are leaving behind (truth be told that wasn’t my motivation). I even have a refillable water bottle and a small car (Volvo S60) that I use for commuting to/from work. For a conservative chap, I feel like that makes me pretty green. I don’t have solar added to our home; I don’t contribute to the electric company so they can buy more of those gigantic windmills to produce electricity. I certainly don’t wear green on my sleeves like many people do, but I try to do my part. (I know…how big of me).

I have to laugh at the ignorance of some people though. I have neighbors that refuse to run their A/C on 95 degree days in the name of reducing their carbon footprint. I know people that have invested in solar panels for their home even though they will never see the return on their investment. I know our federal government gave $20 Million dollars to the city of Seattle to create green jobs only to see a return of 14 jobs from that investment. That equates to a cost of $1,428,571.43 per job. Great job!

I have to lay something out here…I have no problem with making a shift and trying to be more green, but I believe in being responsible about it because I have not drank any of that Kool-Aid.

I understand why the government wants clean coal technology, I understand why they want to get away from crude oil, I understand why they want to find alternative fuel sources and encourage companies to be more innovative. I just don’t understand why anyone thinks we can run over all the energy companies forcing them in a short amount of time to change the way they do business without having something to take its place. I don’t understand how we can give $20 million to a city to produce green jobs and basically just abandon all sense of reason.

Why didn’t we invest some of this money in new refineries to help reduce the cost of gasoline (last refinery built in the US was 1993)? Why aren’t we drilling in the oil rich portions of the US instead of giving Venezuela $2 Billion for offshore drilling? Why didn’t we produce another nuclear facility to help cover the current need while still using some of the stimulus to research and learn more about how we could create green energy for a lower price? Why are we trying to cut off the use of fossil fuels even though we Gasoline powered engines are not disappearing overnight so let’s slow down and make this change responsibly. Green jobs aren’t going to be the only jobs overnight either so let’s stop penalizing the current energy companies because that will just equate to higher prices for us.

It’s time for people to pull their heads out of their asses. We are not Europe and most of us don’t want to be Europe. We need to start approaching future decisions with common sense and accountability. The days of blindly throwing money at problems has to change. We need to add accountability and find someone in Washington DC that has at least a shred of common sense to start monitoring this garbage. In the months leading up to the 2012 Presidential election, I bet we’ll hear a lot more of these examples. We passed this asinine stimulus and health care bills and we found out what was in it. It’s just too bad we trusted our representatives to actually represent us.

Anyone but Obama 2012

Squeaky…

Move over Michele Bachmann, there is now a nutcase in the race with the proper chromosomes to be qualified to be President. Now before you get all hot and bothered by the sexism of me saying such a thing, that is certainly not how I feel. However, it must be how the Republican primary voters feel.

How else do you explain that in less than two weeks since officially jumping into the race that he is already the frontrunner and put good Ole Mittens and the crazy lady well behind in second and fourth place.

The new Gallup poll out today has Perry with 29 percent, Romney with 17, Ron Paul with 13 and Bachmann with just ten percent now in the polls.

There has been constant talk throughout this early stage in the process of the field not being complete or the voters being happy with their choices. Once Bachmann entered the race that quieted down a little bit, but despite running away with a meaningless straw poll vote in Iowa she never took over the lead in polling with the voters.

On the surface Bachmann and Perry appeal to the same audience of voters. Both are firebrands that say the red meat the tea party people want to hear, only one is male and one is female. So that has to be the reason for Perry’s surge to the front. It sure is not about his record as Governor of Texas, as I would say Dubya was a better Governor than him.

Speaking of which, if Perry were to get elected, I would for the first time answer yes to all those ‘Miss Me Yet?’ bumper stickers.

Don’t fret though you Bachmann crazies. You are bound to gather up the preference of those running behind you in the polls now and Perry could always mess things up and vault you back to the top.

One reason that could happen is the biggest difference other than gender between Perry and her. That reason being that she actually means and believes all the stupid and crazy shit that comes out of her mouth. Perry on the other hand, as evidenced by his responses to his own statements and writings in just the past year is already trying to change what he said, or that he meant this instead. If he does this too much the tea party people will start to see him as not much better than Mitt on that account and go back to supporting Bachmann. As genuine, sincere and honest craziness means much more to them, even if it is from a woman.

This weekend I attended the Iowa Straw Poll. It was the first time I attended and didn’t have to “work” at the straw poll. Although I was tweeting for CAPE PAC and Soapboxers, so I guess I was working. But I didn’t have VIP Credentials like in previous years. It was also the first time my husband was able to attend with me. Four years ago he was in Iraq and missed out on all of the Straw Poll fun. He had no idea it was “such a big deal”.

Everyone was there, including Benjamin Franklin. He asked if I wanted a picture with him and I said, “Sure.” He put his arm around me and said, “Benjamin LIKES the ladies.” http://twitpic.com/65j85c Which is why my face is half scared, half laugh.

Before the results were announced, a friend asked who I thought would win. I said, “Bachmann one, Paul two, Pawlenty three.” My friend responded, “Interesting.” And then the results came down. “Bachmann one, Paul two, Pawlenty three.” My husband turned to me, jaw wide open and said, “How did you do that?” I laughed. Ten years in politics and you learn to read the crowds.

But yes, while I was there I tweeted the following:

“I keep having to remind DH that the candidate in last place’s name was “Thad McCotter” not “Scooter McGee”.”

“Ron Paul folks have left Hilton. Place smells a little better.”

“Overheard at the #IAStrawPoll “Ron Paul has brownies!” But what is in those brownies?”

Was I a little to harsh on the Ron Paul supporters? Maybe. They’re passionate and that’s good. But now they’re upset that Paul isn’t getting the media attention “he deserves.” I’ll let you in on a secret Ron Paul supporters, he’s not going to get the nomination.

Now, don’t get mad at me. That’s just the way it is. Ron Paul is what I like to call the “Drunk Uncle” (or “Drunkle” as my brother says) that everyone has at Thanksgiving. You know what I mean. It’s the guy you’re forced to invite, you never know what he’s going to say and you don’t know how to react when he goes off on one of his tangents. But it’s true.

So there it is, Ron Paul supporters. You’re passionate, and that’s awesome. That IS what we need in politics. But Ron Paul is not the guy. He’s not going to get the nomination. And getting second place in the Iowa Straw Poll is great, but if Paul runs as an Independent, he’ll only split the votes and we’ll get four more years of Obama.

It’s time to face the facts. He’s not going to get the nomination. There are too many other good candidates in the race. Ron Paul isn’t one of them. As my dad always told me before a big swim meet, “Second Place is the first loser”.