[ A special FGAQ op-ed ]

Following up: An urgent message to the Gallup Organization   George Gallup, Jr   After World War II, my father was an up and coming statistical analyst who seemed on the verge of greatness. Justifiable, as he had correctly predicted the winners of the three previous election using sampling populations as small as 5,000 respondents. But in the fateful year of 1948, with the press regarding him as a statistical demigod, he boldly predicted that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman by as much as fifteen points. He could have averted this disastrous forecast had he only asked the proper follow-up question: "Thomas Dewey is as vacant as a commercial lot, and he looks like Orson Wells in Citizen Kane... May I assume that you are jesting?"   The fact is that by 1948, Americans were finally starting to relax after the Great War. Endued with a more playful spirit, they were increasingly comfortable joshing with a pollster. However, when reminded of the seriousness of the query, they were usually swift to reveal their true opinion. Avoidance of this simple follow-up is undoubtedly the reason that my father toiled in obscurity for another ten years before he was able to establish the Gallup Organization, a mistake he vowed never to make again.   I am proud of the years I spent at the helm of Gallup after the departure of my father, and I faithfully followed his credo of respecting the follow-up question. And though I am no longer involved with the day to day business of the organization, I continue to follow their findings with great interest. This is why I now take pen to paper, and ask current Gallup CEO Jim Clifton to explain what in Hades is this piece of excretory claptrap that you saw fit to publish today?   "71% of National adults feel that is very important or somewhat important for the GOP to consider Tea Party ideas". Even setting aside the vast gulf between 'very important' and 'somewhat', this might at least serve as statistics to ponder were it not for the further delineation of the sampling pool.   It probably is futile to search for meaning in the true composition of those who label themselves as independents in the current environment, for these are tricky devils and their motivation are often unclear, but surely they are a group that is worthy of the follow-up my father infamously neglected to use.   It is with the group self-identified as Democrats, however, that the absence of this second question is most sorely missed. 53% believe that it is important for the GOP to listen to Tea Party ideas. In light of the fact that previous statistics had already established that only 11% of Democrats admitted having even a somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party, the proper follow-up should not be 'are you jesting?' but a hearty 'what in the blazes do you mean by that?'   Many explanations are possible: hope that further radicalization alienates the GOP from the mainstream, a desire for the higher entertainment value that Tea Party candidates tend to provide, or an honest desire to see these views have full access in the marketplace of ideas, but they are all as unexplored as a distant universe of barren planetoids.   I note with interest that during the three days required to conduct this half-hearted survey, a mere 1032 respondents were sampled. Surely there was sufficient time for an illuminating secondary multiple choice. In my tenure at the Gallup helm, we worked eight hour days, and coffee breaks were only fifteen minutes. Mister Clifton, this lack of follow-up has thoroughly destroyed my enjoyment of the latest Gallup poll, and I fear that it sullies the great reputation of the entire organization through the sin of omission. Be advised that I shall carefully poll this matter among my constituents, and should my fears be born out, I shall look upon you and the Gallup Organization with great disfavor.

consummate hackery

For several years, I've had my own particular view of how we should treat the presidency, which boils down to two basic precepts and a rewriting of the 22nd Amendment. First, there should be no term limits, and secondly, no one should be allowed to serve two consecutive terms.   There are a lot of good reasons for this approach, many of which are covered in an OpEd by Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen in the Washington Post, but their arguments are more than a little dulled by the fact that they're so Obamacentric. This may be a 'critical moment for the country',  but there have been critical moments in the past and there will surely be many more in the future. Their positioning of the recent elections as a referendum on Obama, and enticement of him to be truly transformative give the game away. Or maybe it's the title that gives it away - "To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012".   If that sounds like a FOX News wet dream, it may be because Caddell is a former contributor and Schoen is a current one. But they both want Obama to succeed, they really do. In fact, they "make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country". Look at all the great things that would happen in America if he would only say 'I quit'. "By explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose."   Glory, hallelujah! He could bring us together and we could all just get along, if only he would leave! And then whoever was elected next would have a clean slate, in a world without the possibility of acrimony! As the two note, Obama once said "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president", and the excellent news is that "He now has the chance to deliver on that idea"!!!!   "Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative."   Come on, you two knucleheads, I'm pretty sure you know exactly what the definition of a 'lame duck' is - a politician who is in the last two years of their term without the possibility of reelection. It tends to be a highly unproductive period for a presidency because everyone is posturing in anticipation of an open field election. Just what is it about that sort of atmosphere that would tempt Mitch McConnell to be cooperative? Oh, there's more, but let me just go straight to the glory that awaits Barack Obama in January 2013...   "He walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public."   The heavens will open up and angels will sing! I know, I'm thinking the same thing as you - Obama would have to be crazy to not quit now.

defamation avoided

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has gone public with his distaste for the New York Times, calling on the Afghan media to "defame The New York Times just as they have defamed us. And to clarify, by us I mean me."   The Afghan media, primarily the state-owned Bakhtar News Agency, promise to get right on it just as soon as they can find a copy of the Times in Pashto or Dari.   "It would be imprudent to do otherwise," said Ministry of Information and Culture Sayed Makdoom Raheen. "We do not wish to defame the powerful New York Times without first reading the vicious slander which President Karzai has assures us they have slimed him with. My first instinct would be to write that the Times is not worthy of wrapping the dung of a jackal. There is, however, the ever present possibility that our leader was deeply under the spell of our excellent Afghan opiates, so I do not wish to defame simply for the sake of defaming."   The egregious statements to which Karzai was alluding came from a report filed this weekend in which the Times detailed his habit of  soliciting large plastic bags full of euros from Iran which he uses to pay bribes. These bags of moolah were alleged to have contained one to two million dollars and were paid out every other month, Allah willing.   The allegations became moot today after Karzai admitted that they were true, while sternly criticizing the erroneous impression given by the Times that this was some sort of gift. Not at all, he insisted, intriguingly leaving the details for a future report, "they have asked for good relations in return, and for lots of other things in return." And furthermore, so what, the United States give him bribery bucks as well. "They do give us bags of money," he continued in that endearing little way of his. "Yes, yes they do. It's all the same. So let’s not make this an issue."   "Ah, well, if he says let's not make this an issue, then let's not make this an issue," said a relieved Minister Raheen. "I would still very much enjoy defaming the New York Times, and fully intend to do so if they ever say anything about Karzai that isn't true."

Pat lashes out

Pat Robertson lashed out at the media this morning on the '700 Club' for what he called "gross negligence in the reporting of incendiary statements by America's religious leaders". Calling it a 'come to Jesus moment', he gave the media until Friday to apologize or face the prospect of being lashed again. "I'm talking about the entire media, left, right, middle, broadcast, print, and social," Robertson told co-host Terry Ann Meeuwsen. "They've all been atwitter - even on Twitter, I understand - about some rather innocuous comments made by my lesser competitor Franklin Graham on Islam last Friday. Now in one sense, I understand this. Franklin did bring the President into the conversation, so I suppose that makes it news. But it is rather small potatoes in the larger scheme of things. I've been defaming Islam for years, unlike Reverend Johnny-come-lately Graham." "On Thursday I explained right here on the '700 Club' the planned Muslim takeover of America, one city at a time. I gave as an example the small town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where they're going to be bringing in thousands and thousands of Muslims, taking over the city counsel, and creating ordinances mandating prayer five times a day and foot washing facilities in all public restrooms. Just imagine taking your family out for a meal at a nice restaurant, and when you go to wash your hands there's a strange bearded man with his feet in a tub. Unthinkable. I then went on to explain how resistance was practically futile, because of the Muslim plan to bring in thousands of dollars of Saudi money intended to bribe local politicians to sell out their citizens." "And what was the reaction to my warning, Terry Ann? That's right, there was no reaction. None at all. Rush didn't mention me. Beck didn't mention me. Hannity didn't mention me, and quite frankly, you would have thought that would have been a gimme. I wasn't interviewed by any of the FOX shows, and I wasn't even mocked by any of the MSNBC shows. Did you see Olbermann's 'Worst People in the World' on Friday? You didn't see me, then. Not even a couple of words from the Daily Kos." "That, my friends, is a media blackout. Franklin Graham made his bland comments on the Larry King show, which has an audience of what? Thirty thousand? Everybody heard about it, but when I revealed the truth to our seven million viewers, it was like that tree that falls in the forest. You know, the one that nobody hears. I'm starting to believe that perhaps the local politicians aren't the only ones on the receiving end of those Saudi bribes. I pray that I'm wrong, Terry Ann, but if I don't get some pretty heavy coverage from the news cycle by Friday, I'm going to lash out big time."

FGAQ: Helping Pat to reach the masses.

Sarah now unstoppable

Within hours of delivering the best speech ever given, it has become apparent that Sarah Palin has effectively secured the Republican nomination for the presidency. Her Tea Party speech was regarded as such an important event that not only was it seen on FOX News, but also CNN, which had nothing better to do anyway, and MSNBC, which pre-empted a very special episode of 'Lockup'. The morning after the wondrous speech - which was so powerful that grown men wept and liberals felt the scales fall away from their eyes - Palin appeared on FOX News Sunday to say it would be 'absurd not to consider running' for president in 2012. "Absurd is the operative word here," agreed host Chris Wallace. "It would be completely absurd for you not to run, and it would be even more absurd to think that anyone could give you any real competition whatsoever. I mean, who's going to challenge you, friggin Mitt Romney?" "That Wallace character has sure got me pegged," said friggin Mitt Romney. "Sarah would beat me like a red-headed step child if I ran against her. Of course I'd enjoy every minute of it, but the real question is why I would want to stand in the way of someone with such proven ability to transform our nation. It's my patriotic duty to stay on the sidelines and help her win." "Well, I'm staying in the race," Tim Pawlenty said Monday morning on CNN. "But let me just make it clear that I'm not in it to win it. The Republican Party just needs to have somebody else available in case Sarah gets in a tragic snowmobile accident or changes her mind, God forbid."