(no subject)

When we last checked in, the Ron Paul revolution had taken off.

No surprise as Ron Paul has the best tv ads on the air, and has done so, consistently throughout the campaign (the only problem with Paul's ads is that he looks a bit Pat Paulsen, but there's not much anyone can do about that).

Willard's ads have been pretty solid, and Newton's deserve credit for staying positive (although there is too much of a funeral home vie to them , that I halfway expect Newt to say "When a loved one passes away..").  The first Santorum ads have ran, and Bachmann's out of money.  The most recent Perry ad stars Anita Perry, who at least comes across as honest and likable, something that her husband just can't pull off.

After the first major poll to show Paul on top, a second one came out this week to verify it- the KCRG/Cedar Rapids Gazette poll:

Paul  27.5%
Gingrich 25.3%
Romney 17.5%
Perry  11.2%
Bachmann 7.4%
Santorum 4.9%
Cain 0.4%
Huntsman 0.3%

The poll also finds that the younger, poorer, secular and women prefer Paul, while the older, richer, more religious and men generally favor Gingrich.

Still, we know that things are pretty much still up in the air, and so like Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich before him, we assumed Paul's time at the top would be short.

Although he didn't suffer the negative ad barrage that Gingrich did, it wasn't long before the blowhards who built Paul up by praising his 'fiscal genius', were tearing him down by claiming his libertarian policies would legalize polygamy.  Ministers, who were never big fans in the first place, were claiming Paul would bring about Armageddon.

These factors combined with a disastrous debate performance in which Paul revealed he was such an isolationist that he thought American teams should boycott the World Series.  

Most damning of all, Paul has been hit by that worst of all phrases "unelectable"; meaning when Rasmussen's poll came out yesterday, Willard was back on top again.

Romney  25%
Paul 20%
Gingrich 17%
Perry 10%
Santorum 10%
Bachmann 6%
Huntsman 4%
Others  1%

In the category of "Strongest General Election Candidate' Paul finishes third (Romney 35%, Gingrich 25%, Paul 15%), but on the other end, Paul has fallen behind even Michelle Bachmann as "weakest general election candidate"  (Paul 26%, Bachmann 21%, Gingrich 16%, Romney 3%).

On the other hand, Paul did win the mock election held by Polk County High Schoolers, taking 31% of the vote, beating Romney (22%) and Perry (20%).  So at least, Ron can live in comfort that if they ever lower the voting age to eighteen fourteen, he is a sure bet.

Caucus Update: "In Your Face" edition

Iowa's spot as "First in the Country" is always in danger. Things looked safe for the Hawkeye State after Obama won in 2008, beating Hillary and going on to the White House.

Still, it's never safe. there's always states like Florida eager to step in line and don't forget the National Vote Initiative crowd.

This year, especially has been difficult. The first major blow was that the land of Steve king and Bob vander Plats was too far to the right for the rest of the country. It has been said often in this election cycle (from Bachmann's early popularity to the recent performance of Paul) that whoever Iowa selects (like Huckabee before) will be too beholden to the Evangelicals and just plain unelectable.

The second blow, and this one is a lot more subtle if you have not been paying attention is that we have moved toward a National Primary already. While Santorum and Bachmann have ate at a Pizza Ranch every night for the past 6 months, it's only the National polls that matter.

Think about it. The fall of Michele Bachmann started when her Ames Straw poll did nothing to move her National numbers. Conversely, Newt Gingrich's campaign was dead in Iowa until his National numbers soared. (To a minor degree, Herman Cain was still holding in there in Iowa until his National numbers dropped, but I think I have already made the point).

Still, I hope Iowa never goes away, as we get so much face time with the candidate. Willard's "Corporations are people" comment would never have happened.

I know it's probably a matter of time before it goes away. There, of course, was the Iowan who tweeted that he was so close to Newt Gingrich he could shoot him. There of course is Occupy Iowa (who smartly don't plan on infringing on democracy) , but have made life hell for the staffs of Herman Cain and Mitt Romney (and Democrats aren't immune), and the hacker group Anonymous who has scared the GOP into using paper ballots.

So, I loved the Iowa caucuses, so you can get all in Newt's grill, and call hims a "f*ing a**hole".

As if that wasn't bad enough of a headline news story for newton, the next day his campaign announcement got heckled and ran out of the event.  What was supposed to be a major endorsement (Iowa House Speaker Craig Paulsen) turned into a victory for the Occupy guys.

Sure, all of the candidates have had their moments (Bachmann has routinely had issues with college students and state fairgoers.  rick Perry thought he could run a "queerin' don't make the world work" ad without people showing up to tell him what for), but I guess there's just something natural about telling Newt off.

Despite the fact Paulsen was there to endorse Gingrich as an outsider (ya rly), Newt is the face of the career politician - a 20-year Congressman who makes millions lobbying; which is why glittering Newt is such a fun idea.

So, we will see post-Gabby Giffords and post-Occupy, if the parties reign things in, or we will still see top National leaders in smalltown Iowa cafes in 2016.

(Disclaimer:  I have been face-to-face with Newt Gingrich twice (one time even sitting on his lap shaking his hand), and (call it either cowardness or respect) never said a negative word.  My bark is worst than my bite.