Polling and the 2012 General Election – Is there a Reliable Poll – most probably not – Fact: Polls Based on Four year old trends Cannot be Accurate

What happens when one adjusts the polling data based on 2008 trends with current voter identification? - 1980. image: screenshot of www.unskewedpolls.com

There’s a feeling of Déjà-Vu about this general election cycle, if one were awake or living in the year 1980 – the economy was in deep trouble, the President a proponent of “Big Government”, entitlements were up, interest rates were through the roof, the price of gas was astronomical, as was food, and to top it all off there was a crisis in the Middle East. The polls throughout the 1980 Presidential election were either tied or had the President in the lead – right up to the night before the election – the prediction: too close to call.

Of course, the news articles, and nightly newscasts referred to the GOP candidate, Ronald Reagan, as a “clown”, and negative articles and broadcasts appeared “stacked” against the Republican challenger to President Carter. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 5, 1980 – via the Washington Post: “Reagan Campaign Battles Slip-ups” - the article goes on to cite growing concerns within the campaign, the gaffes the candidate was making - the perception – the campaign was in disarray.

Sound familiar?

After the dust settled, Gallup explained the Carter loss as a “Dramatic Vote Changes Given Carter in 76, 80”(Youngstown Vindicator, December 21, 1980). Simply put, Carter won the youth vote and the ethnic vote, but lost his edge on the balance – his support among traditional Democrat voters fell from 82% to 69%, and he lost in a landslide.

Therefore, one had, an extremely re-electable President, by all polls, a challenger whose campaign was in trouble in late October, the GOP candidate made gaffes so often by the media standards, he was not electable - and yet – he prevailed.

Fast-forward to 2012 – and one finds Romney’s news coverage, with very limited exception – negative. He’s made a lot of gaffes and the polls are tied up or worse, the President is leading in three key swing states! – Romney’s Campaign is in disarray!

Trust in media has slipped to unknown territory – with these same pollsters offering a tied scenario – which allows broadcast to manufacture an image that the Romney campaign is somehow deficient due to the polls. These polls that are using samples (those surveyed) that are based off election statistics from 2008. Therefore in simple terms, this tests the limits of simple math.

In 2008, the Democrats had a large share of registered or identified voters, there were fewer registered Republicans, and Independents leaned Democrat, they made up a fraction of the vote. These statistics have changed over the course of the past four years, the Democrats have lost their huge lead over voter registration and the Republican’s have increased their share of the electorate, as have the Independents to a greater extent.

Therefore for a polling firm to base 2012 projections on the 2008 model may be a tad misleading.

Which is the reasoning behind the new website www.unskewedpolls.com - a site that is similar in scope to the model used by Real Clear Politics, which blends all polls and uses the average as a result. With the exception, the polls are re-calculated using voter registration/party identification from 2012. When one changes the percentage of the sample, one finds that candidate Romney is leading President Obama by an average of 7 to 13 points, as suggested by the unskewedpolls.com.

Although, one must question the accuracy of changing the original polling data, even basing that data on accurate samples, to project an outcome by using bad statistical data in the first place!

That said, the models used, even though the accuracy might be questions, give candidate Mitt Romney a lead that is identical to the results of the 1980 election. (Refer to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Gallup article in paragraph 2)

Therefore, it would be wise to take any polls, at this point, with a grain of salt, unless, of course, the pollster shares their methodology, showing an accurate sample of the electorate based on the most recent voter patterns and identity. Therefore, the results will be known on the morning after the November election.

If the statistics hold for the electorate as it now stands, and those numbers go to the polls and vote, regardless of whether or not a candidate is “likable”, regardless of how “smart” a candidate is, or “how rich” – then one would suggest that history might just repeat itself. One final thought:

The logic in 1980 was that although Reagan might be “likeable” – Carter would win on intellect (The Modesto Bee, September 28, 1980). The reasoning, people would not vote their wallet. This was a reverse on the angle that President Obama is more “likable” than Romney, and yet, the Obama Campaign is counting on the – economy not counting. Same election, different decade.

Mitt Romney Get’s the Job Done – Delivers Rousing Pragmatic Speech - Makes Strong Case - The Independent Analysis

Mitt Romney, 2012 Presidential Candidate - image muckrack.com

Mitt Romney, now officially the GOP 2012 Presidential Candidate, gave a well-delivered and well-crafted speech last night, closing the Republican Convention in Tampa and officially beginning his path to the Presidency. The full text of his speech is available at the Washington Post. In watching the network news coverage just prior to the final speeches during the 10 pm coverage, one was struck by the insistence that Romney “must humanize” himself and “connect with voters” – he did just that – to the point where Bob Schieffer, of CBS news had to be called several times on air – giving the impression that Romney’s delivery caused that member of the press to become speechless for a moment. Schieffer immediately began to focus on the speech given by actor-director, Clint Eastwood, who, according to the press narrative, was a huge mistake - Schieffer repeatedly said that Eastwood would be the “talk of the morning talk shows (referring, of course, to the network morning talk shows), and that no-one would be talking about Mitt Romney. It was as if, listening to the talking heads of the major networks and, of course, the cable news networks, that the individuals watching the same speakers, listening to the same speeches, would somehow give a whit about their opinion of events. Frankly, it was not without a bit of humor, that the reaction to the end of the Republican Convention was one that left those who have lost the tenants of their craft, grasping at straws.

Perhaps the best coverage of what individuals who are extremely vested in the process, was over at C-Span, after the speeches were delivered and the floor cleared, the network offered three call-in-lines – one for Romney Supports, one for Obama Supporters and one for Democrats. A call that came in from one of President Obama’s supports was extremely pointed, and spoke to the nature of this election and how it will proceed – (Paraphrasing) “Mitt Romney delivered a very good speech, but I’m a Democrat who will still vote for Obama. He did a good job, but Obama needs more time, it took Franklin D. Roosevelt three terms and World War II to right the nation, so it is going to take more than four years for Obama to fix the economy.” The speaker went on to say, of course, without starting another World War. This man’s statement, as well as the overwhelming support for Mitt Romney from the Independents phoning into the network (it goes without saying that the Romney Supporters would be – overjoyed) played out what one understands is happening in the nation – and for this reason, one has to understand, the course of events and Romney’s failure to fall into the orchestra pit (one of the networks talking heads), are why the press who are more than sympathetic to President Obama, are somewhat rattled and willing to and ready to search for anything, no matter how obscure, to negate the facts.

The Democrats will garner the votes of those who will vote for a Democrat, no matter that they have to craft excuses for failure, 41% of those die-hard party faithful voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 – and one can anticipate that they will do so again. The percentage is the approximate number of registered Democrats who would never cross a party line. There are those that will be so driven they will go into nursing homes with Alzheimer units, and insure that an individual who cannot recognize their own family, votes for the Democrat on the ticket. (This was a personal experience of this blogger, as her mother, a Republican leaning independent, was found, unable to hold a pen, but being “helped” to vote for Al Gore in the 2000 election – the excuse by the Democrat operative – well, she may have been a registered Democrat and her vote should count. The final words before this daughter called security.) As a former Democrat, and fierce Independent, who was brought up in a politically mixed family, the single most important charge one has an American citizen is to vote, regardless of one’s choice, one has the responsibility to vote for the individual whom they feel has presented the best case, (or resume) for the job.

That is how an Independent casts their vote – that is the speech that Romney delivered which, had the entire proceeding been shown on the networks, one would be even more inclined, if possible, to cast their vote for Mitt Romney in November.
It is because Independents are unaffiliated and not beholden to any political party, and the fact that the numbers for both political parties are fairly evenly matched in terms of members, it stands to reason, that the Romney speech could have been horrid, and he would still prevail. The reasoning was made clear in Romney’s speech last night – and for the first time, the comparison was made by a candidate between President James Carter and President Barack Obama – both men were not prepared for the task at hand, as they had limited experience in the real world. What was left unsaid, was that both President Carter and President Obama subscribed to a more left of center political ideology than the majority of voters from all political spectrums – and they governed the nation into depression (fiscally and emotionally), by a combination of the lack of experience and their ideology. The fact that neither man intended that the consequences of their actions might cause stagnation, is a given. President Carter and President Obama truly believe that all people should have the same playing field, that Americans can and should be successful – they just, for whatever reason, cannot connect the dots or get the job done. Their failures have nothing to do with racism or party partisanship – it has everything to do with the reality that neither man was suited for the job. They both had successes as well, but their failures far outweighed those successes, and those who were breathing in the 1980’s understood that Ronald Reagan offered them experience – as someone who worked for a living, someone who ran a Governor’s office, and someone who spoke straight to the public. This former Democrat, who feared Regan at the time of the election, voted for the third party candidate in 1980 – in 1984, this Reagan Democrat, cast her vote for President Reagan as an Independent, because he had proven that he could right the ship of the economy, improve the lives of millions of American’s – all of this achieved with a very hostile press and no alternative news sources. There were no cable news networks, there were no radio talk shows, there was no internet – and yet, somehow Ronald Reagan was elected, not once, but twice, in a landslide – despite the narrative up to the end, that Carter was fine, the polls were close and Regan was a clown, lacking experience in foreign policy – all Carter needed was more time.

It didn’t work then, it will not work now.

From a point of view of someone who was never enamored of Governor Mitt Romney, and gave credit where credit was due out of a sense of having to deliver an opinion grounded in reality, over the course of the past three months, and researching Romney, one found that there are reasons why he has been unfairly misjudged – this Massachusetts Independent was unfairly judging Mitt Romney. Over the course of the past few months, it became apparent that Romney was not the stuffed shirt, the selfish “rich guy” who was being portrayed by the media, rather, someone who gave above and beyond in measure of both treasure and most importantly time to help strangers, neighbors in situation after situation, without looking for a photo opp. He did not take a salary as Governor, more women held positions of parity in Massachusetts and it was Romney’s doing. Those individuals came from both political parties, and the narrative of a failed Massachusetts under his leadership is patently false. It is a matter of public record that Romney reformed Massachusetts Schools which had high standards that were immediately thrown out once he was no longer Governor. His focus was on job creation and although he did have the advantage of being a Governor when jobs were plentiful in the rest of the nation, he managed the unthinkable by creating jobs in a state where both Employers and Employees had been leaving in droves. He worked across the aisle and he got the job done. It was not without a bit of criticism from individuals who are diehard Conservatives and those who are diehard Democrats – there will always be that division of party first, country second in that situation. That is what the founding fathers feared most about political parties –it was their druthers that we all be independent voters.

Therefore, what will be most interesting is to see how well the Obama Campaign delivers “we need a second term” because of “name an excuse, but it will likely be “the recession historically takes more time to get out of – just look at FDR!”. Yes, it did take FDR three terms as President and a World War to right the economy – however, it took Ronald Reagan with a different philosophy on management, less than one term to right the economy and build a military that inspired nations to back away from conflicts. It is not that Mitt Romney is Ronald Regan, although after last night’s speech that fallacy that he cannot connect with voters has been proven false, it is that Romney offers a better resume, and he has similar policies to Reagan – policies that are based on math – as Ryan might frame the narrative.
One cannot predict the outcome, as there are so many variances, but that said, this looks a lot like 1980 and the GOP has a Presidential Candidate with a running mate that are more than qualified to accept the task one hand. In watching speakers to the final speeches, what was present was a feeling of optimism, one that has not been present for some time – that optimism that the economy can improve, and that life will be less hard once Romney is President.

Sarah Palin Aiken Should Step Down, Palin will support Sarah Steelman as an Independent – Cites 28 days for Aikin to Step Aside

Sarah Steelman, Palin's Choice for MO Senate Candidate - image FoxNews.com

Sarah Palin made an appearance on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record”, blasting Missouri GOP primary winner, Todd Aiken for his comments regarding rape, and his misguided, draconian, insane statement on what might be considered “rape”. The statement caused a firestorm coming from within the GOP establishment – generally known to boot anyone who steps outside the line, no matter the offense, to the curb, and quickly. The Democrats immediately attempted to link the crackpot from Missouri with the balance of the GOP candidates – not an unusual step for a party that is filled to the brim with candidates and incumbents who have been convicted, investigated, chastised, and supported – by the DNC. The Democrat who strays from the appropriate is applauded and protected by the main Party – regardless of the charges (See Rangel and Frank for prime examples). It is rank partisanship on one side (Democrats) and intolerance for any member who strays from reality or is charged with an offense on the other side (Republican) that might, at times, have independent thinks a bit mind-boggled.

Palin, who was furious with the situation in Missouri, and made no bones about it. She suggested that the “establishment” Republicans had supported Aiken, and now are calling for him to get out of the race, should have supported her candidate of choice to begin with – Sarah Steelman. In the segment (shown below) Palin went on to suggest that Steelman run as an independent, and basically offered both political and financial support in order for her to do so. This is in the event that Aiken does not remove himself from ticket by September 28th. Sarah Steelman is the type of candidate that would gain Palin’s backing (See the candidates site at www.sarahsteelman.com, issues page), a conservative, who has served as the Missouri State Treasurer and is a fiscal hawk.

According to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, a candidate has six weeks (the 6th Tuesday) prior to the general election) to formally withdraw, in which case the political party may appoint a successor. Palin’s suggestion that Aikin would face reality as the national GOP leadership and State GOP will stop funding the candidate, giving time to run Ms. Steelman as a Republican, and if not, as an Independent.

Palin, who in 2010, helped propel both Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates to office, has supported both Tea Party as well as Establishment GOP candidates. In addition, she has had a history of bucking the party in general.
When Biden made the racially charged statement in August, Palin was quick to suggest that Biden be removed from the ticket and replaced by Hillary Clinton, for the good of the nation. That video appears below and is worth watching.

Palin’s sincere passion for the political process, but more specifically for the individual candidates character, regardless of party affiliation, is what most of her detractors studiously miss about the former Governor of Alaska. In reality, the nation needs more Sarah Palin’s, those who are of one party or the other, or no particular party at all, but who stand up for the process, not the party – being truly independent and a voice for the American people.

Palin on Aiken



On August 14, Palin suggested that President Obama choose Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as his running mate - Palin has a deep regard for the nation that goes beyond partisan politics, although she is cast in that light more often than not.

Palin Will Not Run for the GOP Nomination in 2012 – Will Work for Historic GOP 2010 Repeat in 2012

Via the Mark Levin Show: Sarah Palin, former 2008 GOP V.P. Candidate and Governor of Alaska, will not seek the GOP nomination for the Presidency in 2012. The text of her letter to supporters follows:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.
My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.
From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.
I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.
Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.
In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.
Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!
God bless America.
– Sarah Palin

From this conservative feminists’ point of view, Palin’s decision in not seeking the office of the Presidency, is, at this juncture, a best use of her talents in shaping the race for not only the Presidency, but the Senate and Congress as well. It is a fact that she was a major force in the 2010 elections, turning the midterms into an historic gain for the GOP, especially with the addition of Tea Party members to the Congress. Although one would have loved to have seen Palin in the debate forum, those eight that have taken the podium are more than deserving, specifically, in this opinion, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. From a pragmatic point of view, those donors and supporters are now free to support the candidate that most respects the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a limited Federal government and freedom from excessive taxation that our Founder’s had in mind. In addition, the candidate who is not afraid to put those, in the media and in both major political parties, that are disparaging, in their place. The country needs a leader who has the intellect, the judgment, the character and the will to govern at this most critical time in our nation’s history. In this opinion, there are those in the current GOP field that fit the bill. God Bless Sarah Palin and her family for all they have put up with, for all she has given of herself for these United States and for all that she intends to do to serve our great nation.

Palin Considers 2012, Christie Continues To Say “No” to Run – ABC and Politico - Palin’s Words Out of Context – A Personal Message to Palin – op-ed–

Christie and Palin - "No" and "Not No" to 2012 GOP Run - image Conservative New Jersey Dot Com

Last evening, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gave a riveting keynote address at the Reagan Forum last evening, following the red-meat, uplifting speech, the floor was opened to a Q&A – the Governor was not coy about his intentions to run for office, rather deferred to the website Politico where it has been repeatedly reported he has no intention of running for President. Christie, who won the NJ Special election in 2009, which was the first sign that there was a disconnect between the people and the tax and spend policy on both state and federal levels, has a fan base within the Republican Party, where he humbly accepted the very “flattering” suggestion that he run for President, and continues to hold out on running for the GOP nomination.

It is not so much that the GOP does not have a talented and capable group of men and women seeking the nomination, in so much that it is early in the process, (although it appears by all media standards and the powers that be (whoever that is), there is certainly time left for others to enter the race, which would only enhance the conversation – Cain, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, and yes, even Ron Paul and John Huntsman are credible, given the fact that individually they are talented and inspiring politico’s, each with a unique style, however, all with fiscal conservative credentials that are critical to the 2012 general election.

Christie’s speech is available at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ChrisCh and is well worth the time to watch.

The other “not yet announced” candidate, Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, appeared on Fox News last night immediately following the coverage of Christie’s speech on that network. Palin, who, according to the New York Times is on the verge of a making her decision regarding a presidential run” - the article, which was published yesterday, is again, from this paper, solid reporting, rather than conjecture or caricature on the Governor, rather, pointing out the fact that polls show her leading among independents, and within 5 points of Obama” – all without having announced.

Her segment on the 10 pm eastern “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, is shown below. In the segment, Palin acknowledged that she must make a decision sooner than later, however, it appears that her only obstacle now, is not her family or her friends, but her own desire to affect positive change in this nation, and she is “on the fence” as to how best to achieve that goal. On the one hand, she notes that a campaign attempts to mold a candidate (having been under the watchful eyes of the RNC in the past), and she appears hesitant about entering that circus once again. Who could blame her? Between the RNC and the Media, Palin was placed between two egotistical organizations that are focused on intrigue and winning at any cost. (Be it a political race or a scoop (and a political race). Entering that snake pit, for the second time, is what millions of Palin Supporters are asking of her, and that appears to be the only barrier to her saying “yes to the stress and the press and the position”.

Can anyone blame her? No matter how one may feel about Palin, either pro or con, in the nations present state, under the present Administration and Congress, it appears that without a clear headed, simple solution leader, one that would not have love lost for either party, one cannot help but literally beg Palin to run – thus the “Run, Sarah, Run” that appears on blog post, and is shouted at rally’s where she appears. Once the video was hot off the Fox presses (see Video clip below) both Politicoand especially ABC News, took Palin’s words out of context. Apparently, not understanding that the gist of her take on the current candidates and the media, was one where the media was attempting to make a circus out of the nominating process. Note to both ABC and Politico: When Palin said: (Paraphrasing) that Herman Cain was the “flavor of the week”, she was referring to the media’s penchant for rising a candidate up and then tearing them down, as soon as it was evident a candidate was making headway within the pre-primary process. It was you, in the media that she was skewering, par usual, rather than any particular candidate. Yet, apparently, both Politico and ABC (or any other network including Fox) does not understand, or are too arrogant to care, that some news consumers, actually shop now – and can pick up the text of what he or she said – this behavior only lends to the distrust of the media.

Further, the ABC nitwit (and that is a kind turn of the phrase) who “blogged” on Palin’s 10 minute segment, had a blast with her use of the word Shackle, and other local colloquialism that those on the east and west coast are simply not acquainted. Words of wisdom from my mother, (usually aimed at yours truly when in youth, one is prone to make, what a 1930’s debutante might consider serious gaffe’s – and the choices one may make – in her era, that referred to the right marriage, the right career, the right friends, and so on): “There’s nothing more disconcerting than an over-educated fool” – appropriate more often than not in these later day cases where those who don’t know, just lash out before actually checking on a turn of phrase, or outright taking someone’s words out of context. ABC is lucky my mother was not standing in that newsroom.

Video


Link to video: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1185953046001/maverick-palin-vs-quasi-reality-show'

A Message to Sarah Palin: Although from this perspective, one can understand you have a family to consider, and that personally, not one of “us” has stepped a foot in your shoes, let alone a mile”, or has taken a beating which never ends from the press (let’s just call that vetting, as in the most vetted candidate), there are still more reasons for you, Governor to take the position as candidate, than to stand on the sidelines, motivating those who may be capable, but are they as capable? Will they stand up to both left and right, regardless of party, a respecter of persons, not politics? Will they be as honest with the American People? Will they be relentless in their fight for a fair press? It is not an easy task, nor is it considered so, rather, pragmatically, an entry into the area, would up the level of discourse, keeping those who may stray in line, shaping from within rather than from without, but never letting go of the capability to do both, and finally, with polls showing that independents will be the deciding factor in the upcoming elections, it is apparent that a candidate that is strong with independents should not hold back, rather should enter the race. We simply cannot afford another four years, regardless of the fact that the Senate may also flip and two houses will once again, be in concert – someone has to watch them, Governor, whether the majority are Republicans or Democrats, someone who has the background, and proven record of setting members of both parties on the right course. That would be you, Governor.

2012 GOP “Pink” “Candidates” Update: Sarah Palin, Potential Candidate Responds to Jury Duty – Media Questions! AP eyes Michelle Bachmann’s Fundraising

Palin at event supporting Bachmann, image MSNBC


For many American’s the postcard in the mail, calling for one to participate in the process of the American Legal System known as Jury Duty, is a challenge of not how to serve when called, rather how to get out of serving as part of a “jury of one’s peers”. In response to Sarah Palin’s call to Jury Duty, late night talk show Comedian, Jay Leno, quipped (paraphrasing), “anyone too stupid to get out of jury duty should not be President”. There are those who will not register to vote, fearing that the dreaded postcard will end up in their mailbox, look for any way in which to make themselves unavailable to serve – however, when one seriously looks at the slight inconvenience of answering the call to serve on a jury, it is with an eye towards the duty and the privilege as a United States citizen, to be able to participate in the process of the U.S. justice system. In addition, one might need a jury of one’s peers at one point in their lifetime; therefore, karma may come in to play. Although the media is questioning the why, when and where’s of Palin’s jury duty, one has to ask, why on earth would the State of Alaska give anyone, including someone calling from CBS, ABC, MSNBC the date, place and time, of the former Governor’s call? That would do one of two things, either confirm completely that she has, indeed been called, (who makes that up?), and they (media) would not mention it again, or, the alternative, the ever “truthful” media would publish the date, time, and place, so that Palin’s might find the courtroom packed with onlookers, and media, disrupting the court, and the proceedings. Would a civil trial be mocked, what if she were not chosen to be on a jury? That would become huge news. The media is, in a word, ridiculous. (Check out ABC’s, questioning whether or not Palin actually has jury duty or is using “jury duty” as an “excuse” of some sort.)

When one answers the call, (this blogger finds it impossible to ignore, no matter the inconvenience, the call is a duty and a privilege, and allows one to participate in the process of justice), one is, with perhaps fifty to one hundred other individuals called on a specific date to a specific court (Federal, County), where one sits for either minutes or hours before being either called into a jury pool, or dismissed until the “next postcard” arrives. If one is called into the pool, one is then given a number; potential jurists are called before the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense, asked a series of questions, and then either chosen or dismissed. If chosen, depending upon the type of trial, one may be in that courthouse for a day or weeks. It can be inconvenient; however, it also proves that our system of government is based on the individual’s ability to appeal to a jury of one’s peers. Therefore, when one does not try to “get out” of being on a jury, one is being civic minded, patriotic, and smart, whereas, should someone like Mr. Leno (or his joke writer) find themselves in the position where they might need a jury of their peers, they might hope that the individuals chosen, were as smart as say, the former Governor of Alaska, especially if innocent of charges.
One has to ask: do the critics of jury duty even vote, or participate in any other way besides, perhaps, paying taxes to the State or Federal government?
Kudos to Palin for stepping up and for the State of Alaska for protecting both the court and Palin (one would be they were protecting the Court first and foremost.)

Michelle Bachmann and her fundraising methods are the focus of an AP article: “Small checks drive Michele Bachmann's big bucks”. The article compares and contrasts Bachmann’s fundraising style with that of President Obama and former President George Bush (one should start to notice that any Republican candidate running, with any article printed, is lately, somehow, compared to George W. Bush – do they never give up?), both of the aforementioned culled the majority of their funds from major donors; those giving the maximum, while Bachmann’s funds come from individual donors, giving small amounts over an extended period of time. It is as if to say: Bachmann’s style (which is then dissected as to how fundraisers approach the donors and the costs of fundraising), may not bring in the big bucks necessary to say, out fundraise one of the “boys” be it Obama or George Bush (who is, to the best of anyone’s knowledge not running nor even involved in the process of 2012). That said, those small donors quoted in this particular article, are from places as far flung as New York, and, according to the AP, they are “retired or own small businesses” just the sort of people one might “profile” as “Tea Party Members”. Also noted is that Bachmann is climbing in the Republican Polls, specifically after her debate performance on CNN’s most recent GOP debate (If one could call it that – given the circus like atmosphere, it had a game show flavor).

Both women, it should be noted, have been outspoken in their beliefs regarding patriotism, the way things should be run (their opinion) and both have been eviscerated for being “women” in a man’s world, not just by the left, (which one would anticipate – see women on women running for President vis a vis Hillary Clinton in 2008 – the great disappearing act – or woman choosing the “rock star” over the more qualified woman), but the GOP “establishment”, or those GOP elite, beltway types, whereas anyone without a country club membership and an Ivy League Degree need not apply. Also, if you are a woman in the GOP, you might want to join say, a group called the “pink elephants” and help support the candidate (male or female) by sporting a button. Although Palin has, at times, embraced, the pink elephants, one has to ask, what color is applied to the male counterparts? Blue? Mamma Grizzly is preferred, or how about woman, female, or just plain, non-descriptive: candidate. Why the need to distinguish between male and female in this particular arena, unless of course, it is to say: women are equal. Are the men called “Blue Elephants, or maybe almost as smart and or as savvy and or as popular as the women? (Referring to so called “men” – with noted exceptions of fearless Rick Perry of dog defending, coyote shooting fame: see (this is hysterical) The Washington Posts: ) “Texas Gov. Perry fatally shoots coyote”).

How rich would our nation be, if in the 2012 campaign cycle, not one but two, or maybe three (any pink donkey’s out there want to take a jab at the President?) women, got on their patriotic, selfless, nation serving soapboxes and gave all of us an opportunity to actually have a choice besides the boys? Perhaps, just perhaps, they may, in the long run, prove to be more capable of the job, which requires nerves of steel, a certain fearlessness of the “politically correct things to say and do”, the ability to make quick decisions, multi-task, survive on little sleep, delegate, and achieve great successes, while being somewhat humble about the whole process – in other words, what every woman, regardless of party, socio economic rung, degree or not, achieves running a household and working on a daily basis.
Are the aforementioned two women right for the job? Is the country ready for a woman? Will the nation ever be ready for a woman to govern? How’s the success rate for the men been so far? How do they compare and contrast to their male counterparts? Are they credible and experienced? Can we afford not to take these women seriously? Those are the questions all voters must ask themselves as we get deeper into the process.

Some see the obvious: Freedommist.blogspot.com utopian Conservative Feminist? Perhpas, or no?

Bachmann Palin (either way) 2012 - image freedommist blog

White House Bans Herald from Press Pool for Obama Boston Fund Raiser - Globe Publishes Top Obama Donors, Praises Romney, Covers West’s “Obama .Puppet"

Mitt Romney, center of squabble between Boston Herald and White House Lehrich

The Boston Heralds has been banned from the press pool covering President Obama’s fund raiser in Boston today. The Herald received the following scolding missive :

I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote.

Apparently, Lehrich left an opening for the Herald noting that the paper may be “allowed” to cover the fundraiser portion of the President’s visit. The Herald article went on to point out a disagreement (or threat) made by the Administration to Hearst’s’ property, the San Francisco Chronicle, for covering a protest at an Obama California fundraiser, as proof that the White House might be selective in which press organizations are allowed near the President – those that cover him “fairly” or those that might highlight a 2012 GOP candidate’s Op-ed, or report on an incident at a fundraiser that reflects negatively on the President.

They should have seen this coming. In his speech in Chicago, immediately following the election results in 2008, then President Elect Obama noted his favorite President was Abraham Lincoln. Those who view history as somewhat predictive of the future, understood that there may have been several reasons a Progressive Democrat would view Abraham Lincoln favorably: the most notable: his suspension of the constitution and the fact that he jailed newspapers editors who published less than complementary articles. Of course, in the case of Obama, and his almost eerie inclination to follow in Jimmy Carters’ footsteps, one can understand that the choice of Lincoln may have been more populist than devious, given the history of the Carter administration is fairly accessible and no real digging is required – therefore, one might be on the fence about the President’s ability to govern from an historical context, or lack thereof, ruling out the academic theory. The most likely indication that this sort of incident might happen, is the administrations choice of staff – and the almost petulant display by some staff members when the President is cast in a bad light (criticized for something that has been done or said, either fairly or unfairly), lacking the experience or the ability to react as an adult.

The fact of the matter is that the Herald did place a Mitt Romney op-ed ahead of the President’s visit to Boston, his second in a short period, the point of the visit to raise funds for the Democrat Party, of which, as sitting President he is the Head of said Political Party – another subject that should raise eyebrows, but somehow does not, when it comes to politics. The sitting President is generally the head of his political party, and the Chairperson of the DNC or RNC takes a back seat – the theory being the President would be the “star” fundraiser, regardless of Party. It’s bad practice for government in general, again, regardless of party.
Therefore, the President is not coming to Massachusetts today to make any grand policy speeches, or to visit the state to stump for re-election but to ask Massachusetts Democrats for money. One has to ask if that is really front page news, or worth a mere mention, when an organization has an op-ed criticizing the President, from a potential 2012 GOP candidate – the Herald chose the Romney op-ed, and is now, apparently being “punished” by the Administration.

The Globe appears to have no such problems, yet. The Globe is covering the President’s visit today, however, some of the articles that are placed on the Home page of the Globe site and the Politics page of the same, might be construed as somewhat Heraldesque.

1. An article entitled: ” West: Obama 'a black mascot' and 'black puppet':

“Cornel West, a Princeton University professor and leading black intellectual, is harshly criticizing President Obama; a candidate he once supported but now calls “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.”
West, a former Harvard University professor, said during an interview with the website Truthdig posted yesterday that the president has not been true to his race.”

Seriously, the man is somewhat of an academic “crank” to put it kindly. The President, whether Black, White, Purple, Yellow or Brown, is the President of all citizens, and should not be labeled as belonging to one group or the other, unless of course, it is a political party. One has to ask is this relevant to the President’s visit?

2. From the Globe’s Politics page ” Leading Democratic contributors from Massachusetts since 2007” the Globe names the top six Massachusetts residents who have heavily contributed to the President; their names, biographies and amount given. From Internet “watchdog” companies, to layers specializing in asbestos suits, to pharmaceuticals, one understands that big business does not always trend Republican, rather, it is the individual who decides whom to support based on ideology, and perhaps the hope of a fair lobbying position.

3. Finally, the icing on the cake: the Globe has praised Mitt Romney with : “A Romney We Can Respect”. The article does not, however, appear on the front page (as does the “Obama is a Puppet “article, rather under local news.) The Globe has finally found something Romney has done that apparently agrees with Globe editorial thought. He defended his position on the Massachusetts Health Care Reform, and he did so with gusto. The Globe could not agree more, however, one had to wade through the usual tirade of Mitt “wrongs” before one got to the Globe’s perception of a Mitt “right”. The wrongs were Romney’s propensity to use PowerPoint, the fact that he calls Massachusetts his ‘home state”, (He may still have a townhouse in Boston, among other real estate holdings scattered about the country, as say, anyone with scads of money may), and pretty much took a shot at Romney’s perfect hair.

Has Matt Lehrich read the Globe today? That’s the question. The fact of the matter is that the slight to the Herald and the way in which the White House missive denying press credentials (or limited credentials) was childish – not what one would expect from a staff member of the President of the United States. In Beantown, where one has the option of choosing one or both daily papers, both should be given access when a sitting President comes to visit, regardless of whether they place the man on the front page, or cover a rival, it is just plain bad politics, and will be perceived as such by those Herald Readers. Instead of granting access and perhaps getting a fair article from the Herald, the choice was made to scold and turn to the Globe – one of the “elite” publications in Massachusetts and as noted above: one that covers the President with “gusto”.

In the end, the local news across the Bay State will be in a tizzy over the President’s visit, as it is rare that a President visits Massachusetts for any reason, unless that President or Candidate is passing through to New Hampshire to camping for an upcoming election, the Bay States now nine electoral votes and late primaries are apparently not enough incentive for anyone to pay too much attention, except for the occasional fund-raiser.

Does it matter that one publication is excluded, one that is a major paper not only in Boston, but across the Baystate – it does on several levels, especially when the President’s poll numbers according to the most fair pollster, Gallup, are dropping daily. In that case, one can ill afford to shut out any news organization when one is literally campaigning for reelection. The theory that Massachusetts is already going to vote to reelect Obama may be the reason, and it may also be flawed. Again, looking at the historical context of this brouhaha between the Press and the President - the only time that Massachusetts, twice in a row, voted for a Republican President, the Commonwealth voted against Jimmy Carter and his economic policies, voting for Reagan, not once, but twice. Romney, it appears understands history and is staying close to the Baystate, where the independents, not the overtly conservative nor the overtly Progressive appear to decide outcomes. (Of course, this assumes that Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination and goes on to challenge Obama in 2012)