The Real Pat Blair

It’s caucus time in Iowa again, or at least that’s what the media has been saying for the past 18 months. And since I know my many loyal readers see this blog as a beacon of political wisdom, or, at the very least, good for a chuckle, I think it’s time for me to dismantle and/or dismember the candidates currently running for their respective party’s nomination to be President of the United States.
Let me start out by saying this: the fact that every one of these candidates feels that the best way to accomplish this goal is by calling my house several times a day with recorded messages and endorsements does NOT bode well for the future of our country.
That being said, what, besides effective push-polling, should one look for in a prospective President? Toughness and confidence? Absolutely, if for no other reason than the brutality of the campaign trail, having your every move, past and present, dissected by the 24-hour media whores horde. And that’s BEFORE you get elected. Afterwards, you face daily threats to your safety, tirades from opposing leaders filled with violent personal attacks, questions about your ability govern, to lead, to spell – and THAT’S just from members of the opposing party. A strong spine and thick skin are important.
A good President also needs a good moral compass – they should know what they believe, why the believe it, and be able to communicate this to others. A weakness of our current president is that he fails at the latter. His predecessor consistently failed at the other two. I maintain that being unable to communicate your deeply held convictions is less of a sin than sticking your thumb to the wind, and then serving up a heap of sugar about why, even though you are a liberal, you now suddenly think that welfare reform and NAFTA are great ideas. But, hey, pick your poison. Not to romanticize Reagan, but he fearlessly communicated his deeply held ideas about the evils of communism, and look how that turned out.
Finally, to be a good President, one must be a good leader, and therefore, must be able to delegate. The jobs of President, CEO, and Head Coach have never been more similar. The ability to do is irrelevant; the ability to get others to do for you is what is important. This is why we so consistently elect Governors, as opposed to Senators, to the Executive office. A Senator picks an issue that is important to him, writes a bill, lobbies and negotiates with colleagues, makes necessary compromises, all with the end goal of reaching a strong enough consensus to make the bill a law. A Governor (President/CEO/etc) says, “Here is the outline of my energy policy. Flesh it out, write it down, make it better, and have it back to me by Wednesday. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to make sure that tax and foreign policies are ready to go, and then give a speech to rally the public behind my ideas.” Letting go to this extent is not an easy thing to do for an ego-maniacal control-freak, and since anyone who actually WANTS to be President must, by default, fit that description to some degree, I think that this trait, often overlooked, is probably one of the most important.
Over the next several days, I’ll examine each candidate, both Democrat and Republican, and then tell you who you should vote/caucus for. Here’s a little suspense: I bet not one of you can guess correctly.

After a nearly 5 month hiatus, I return. Thank you, loyal readers, for checking this site every day, as I know you have, in eager anticipation of a new post. Your 142 vigil has ended - you may now resume everyday life.
What was the cause of the lengthy pause? A number of things, including, but not limited to: new house, new job, lack of enthusiasm, my computer not remembering my password, me failing to adequately nag Matt to reset it, etc, etc. But that is not what’s important now; I am.
What, you might be asking (and if you’re not, you should be), is the catalyst for my triumphant return? Could it be the upcoming Iowa Caucasus? Will I share my wisdom and insight on who the next leader of this great country should be? Yeah, but that’s tomorrow. Today, a discovery so astounding that this blog, known for it’s integral role in the (mockery of the) scientific community, could not look the other direction. No, this landmark study will be commemorated, as so many others, here in these pages of the internet. To what am I referring?
Study Reveals Why Monkeys Shout During Sex
Because they like it? Because monkeys, as a rule, rarely whisper? Because they are mocking the humans that are ADMITTEDLY STUDYING this?

To see if yelling resulted from how vigorous the sex was, the scientists counted the number of pelvic thrusts males gave and timed when they happened…
Counting monkey pelvic thrusts is admittedly “quite weird, but it’s science,” researcher Dana Pfefferle, a behavioral scientist and primatologist at the German Primate Center, told LiveScience.

So you’re counting and timing the pelvic thrusts of monkeys, admitting that you are weird, then trying to brush it off in the name of science? Ladies and gentlemen: your tax dollars.
This is why I work in financial services.