Welcome to Jim McGrath's Writing on the Wall: Tabb Girls, New Kent Boys Win Bay Rivers Track

Welcome to Jim McGrath's Writing on the Wall: Tabb Girls, New Kent Boys Win Bay Rivers Track: "The Tabb girls combined their natural speed with reinforcement from the field events to claim the Bay Rivers district championship yesterday..."

Tabb Girls, New Kent Boys Win Bay Rivers Track

The Tabb girls combined their natural speed with reinforcement from the field events to claim the Bay Rivers district championship yesterday at Bailey Field in Yorktown.

Known as a team loaded with sprinters, but lacking in the field events, the Lady Tigers were bolstered by strong performances in the jumps and throws while outpacing second place Jamestown 125-113.

Longtime coach George Coulter was pleased with his team’s all-around effort as his squad heads into the Region I and state meet with a team trophy on their mind.

“We rarely win the district meet,” said Coulter, now in his 38^th year at the helm. “It’s usually somebody like Lafayette or Jamestown. We do well, but never quite put it together.” Looking ahead, Coulter looks forward to more help from the field. Upon being reminded that his girls were fourth in the indoor state meet he added, “Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot of points to win.”

Looking to carry the torch for her team is senior Kiara Porter. Porter, who will be competing for VCU next year, won the open 400 and 200, is one of the few seniors on the Tabb squad. After anchoring the winning 1600-meter relay, Porter sat in the middle of the football field with relay mates Leigh Ann Soistmann (junior), Taylor Omweg (freshman) and Julia Aymonin (junior) and considered the possibilities for the rest of this season.

“We’re really competitive with John Handley (Winchester). They’re kind of our rival. Blacksburg is also really tough.” Reflecting on their previous effort at the Southern Track Classic last weekend, Porter added, “We’re getting used to better competition, we (1600 relay) finally broke four (minutes) and beat our state time from last year. It (Sports Backers Stadium) is going to be my home track next year.” Aymonin added that their 400-meter relay had also recently broken 50 seconds and should be a factor at future meets.

Soistmann and Omweg talked about the bond within their team, which became evident as the quartet was soon surrounded by a dozen teammates. One by one, the Lady Tigers talked of their closeness, proven by the knowledge of each other’s accomplishments, interrupted only by a call to the podium to claim their first place trophy.

A showcase performance by Porter, solid relay placing, continued support from the field events and contributions from younger runners such as Micah Hanks could propel Tabb to the top of the podium in Harrisonburg two weeks from now.

The New Kent boys pulled away to an early team lead, and held on for a comfortable 143-107 win over runner-up Lafayette.

Senior hurdler Matthew Fultz led the way for the Trojans, winning both the 110 high (15.34) and 300 intermediate (39.92) hurdles.

For Fultz, simply breaking 40 seconds in the 300 hurdles isn’t enough. “Individually, I’m going for gold at region and state. Team wise, it’s the same thing. We’ve been working hard since last summer. It’s our last year and we want to end it off right.”

Cody Simmons won the 200 (22.64) and long jump (21-11.75) for New Kent while taking second in the open 100 meters and 110 hurdles. Cory Dunn provided 28 clutch points with second places in both the long and triple jumps and thirds in the 100 and 200.

In the field, Ryan Coles (48-09.75) won the shot put by over three feet while pole-vaulter Jonathan Fowler’s 12-foot leap won the event. The 1600-meter relay also won with a time of 3:27.51.

Not to be overlooked was Grafton’s Kyle King. The U. VA-bound senior cruised to a self-propelled 9:06.72 effort in the 3200-meter run. His time, which bested the next competitor by almost a minute, is the best among Virginia high schoolers this season and sets up King to become only the seventh runner ever in state history to break nine minutes.

York’s Jack Little was a double winner in the 1600 and 800. On the girls side, Tabb’s Brooke Mahan won the 100 hurdles and triple jump, while Bruton’s Sharmaine Baker took first in the shot put and discus.

Team Results

Boys – 1. New Kent 143, 2. Lafayette 107, 3. Grafton 66, 4. Jamestown 63, 5. York 39, 6. Smithfield 37, 7. Tabb 34, 8. Bruton 23, 9. Warhill 13, 10. Poquoson 2.

Girls – 1. Tabb 125, 2. Jamestown 113, 3. Grafton 93, 4. Bruton 48, 5. Lafayette 40, 6. Smithfield 36, 7. New Kent 34, 8. Warhill 21, 9. York 11, 10. Poquoson 6.

Piaget's Views on Middle Childhood

As a rule of thumb, I need to point out that some scholars have argued against many of Piaget's views on childhood development simply because he based many of his results on tests which he conducted with his own children. This certainly opens his findings to questions of bias as well as sampling size. A study of substance should have at least 30 participants and Piaget certainly did not have 30 children. However, his thoughts are worth a look, particularly for those with children between the ages of 6-12, as well as elementary/early middle school teachers

Jean Piaget is a leading theorist in childhood development and his thoughts on the cognitive development stage of middle childhood are worth a closer look.

For Piaget, this stage begins at about the age of seven and lasts for approximately five years, During this third stage of cognitive development, after the preoperational stage, he sees an increase of concrete operations where children begin to solve actual, or concrete, problems.

Piaget lists five examples of tasks that children can do at a higher level during this stage. They involve space, causality, categorization, conservation, as well as number and mathematics.

By space, the meaning is the ability to get from one place to another. The child becomes more familiar of his or her surroundings.

Causality involves cause and effect. The child can better understand how things work, and how an action can affect the end result.

Categorization includes seriation, or the ability to list objects in a series. A second ability is that of transitive inference, which is the ability to recognize a relationship between two objects by being able to tell the difference between the two objects and a third one. Third, the child learns to categorize by class inclusion, also known as the ability to separate the whole from the parts.

These categorical abilities help children to learn to think logically. Inductive and deductive reasoning become realistic capabilities at this stage.

Conservation is the ability to weigh objects in one's head without being deceived by appearances. A child learns that a long slender object can contain the same amount of weight or mass as a smaller, rounder one. Piaget sees an inconsistency with this and reasons it with a term he calls horizontal decalage, stating that children are so focused on their situation that they cannot always transfer what they have learned from one type of conservation to another.

Finally, we come to numbers and mathematics. According to Piaget, children in this stage devise strategies for adding and subtracting, including in story form (i.e. if Joe goes to the market with $10 and spends $4, he has $6 left.) The ability becomes intuitive.

Piaget accounts these changes to neurological growth, as well as culture.

On the topic of moral development, the theorist looks at a two-stage process. The first stage, morality of constraint, has children viewing morality as a one-way street. All issues are seen as totally right or totally wrong, with no in-between. During the second stage, morality of cooperation, the child learns flexibility as they learn new viewpoints. They are able to see other aspects of a situation. Ask a 7th grader if honesty is the best policy and they are capable of telling you it is not always.

Other approaches to cognitive development are introduced in this stage and seem to be based on technology. Piaget introduces the brain as a filing system that encodes, stores, and retrieves. Metamemory and mnemonics, or memory tricks, are introduced (i.e. Every Good Boy Does Fine, headed by words with EGBDF are the same as the keys on the lines of sheet music.)

I see these as relevant points to consider in an educational setting, especially for an elementary school teacher. It is important to understand what a child is capable of doing, and to tailor learning toward these abilities, or lack thereof. My 7th grade question about honesty comes directly from a citywide (Newport News, VA) essay, which I distributed to my own 7th grade English students. To a person, they were able to differentiate telling the truth because it is the right thing to do from not telling the truth because it might harm one's feelings or endanger someone, say in a hostage situation, or as a "snitch."

As a final thought, I do agree with these views of Piaget, but believe that it is also wise to test children by using all of their types of intelligence, using Gardner's learning styles as a base.

Recognizing and relieving test anxiety

Tests are a way of life. Over the course of one’s life, tests determine many future options. We take math tests, driving tests, college aptitude tests, and physical fitness tests. There is no getting around the standardized testing system. Even the opportunity to graduate high school is lined with a number of end-of-course tests to pass.

Acknowledgement

The first key to overcoming test performance anxiety is to acknowledge its existence. Most students experience some level of anxiety before and during an exam, which is elevated based on the importance of the test. However, to dismiss the presence of anxiety is to deny oneself the opportunity to take preventative measures. Denial is not a viable option. Overcoming anxiety requires honesty in noting that it exists.

Prepare for Success

Many of the fears associated with taking tests deal with the unforeseen. One example of this would be the dream where we show up late to our SAT exam – sometimes in our underwear! The fear is not always rational, but exemplifies our need to prepare in advance. Many test taking anxieties can be relieved by doing what is necessary to prepare in advance.

The first step is easiest to figure out. Preparation begins by studying the material at hand. Practicing time management techniques, such as making a schedule and creating a to-do list help a student to plan studying time in advance. Adherence to one’s schedule allows more test preparation opportunities. Creating the time is not enough. Organizing one’s study materials and studying properly will also help. Consider using questions at the end of each chapter section for practice.

Having one’s materials in a separate, well lit area with few distractions will also help with test preparation. If you don’t have such a space, consider making one. Then gather all of your books and materials and keep them in this area. This will save time spent looking for lost materials.

Preparation Includes Staying Healthy

One overlooked aspect of relieving test anxiety is the idea of staying healthy. The brain, like any of our muscles, needs food, liquids and rest. Being well-rested (at least 7 hours for adults), fed and hydrated (6-8 glasses of water per day) is a good preparation strategy. Maintaining an exercise program has been known to keep the mind sharp. Try to avoid fried foods, processed snacks and carbonated drinks to keep the mind ready for peak performance. Also, be sure to eat on the day of the test. The stomach may be nervous, but the body and brain need nourishment.

Be Confident and Visualize Success

A positive attitude goes a long way for test preparation. If one has followed the guidelines mentioned, there should be fewer reasons to worry. Another key is to arrive for the test early with materials in hand. This eliminates the worry manifested in the SAT dream. If you have studied, found the test site, arranged your spot and have time to spare, then you are prepared to succeed. At this point, a positive visualization can also assist in relieving anxiety. Athletes have been well known for visualizing success (hitting a home run, jumping over the bar) before a competition. It does not have to be as advanced as meditation, but can be a simple as closing your eyes and picturing yourself doing well on the exam. You visualize knowing all the answers, writing a well developed essay and combining thoughts to present a strong thesis.

Take Your Time

Finally, the last step to overcoming test performance anxiety is to take one’s time during the exam. This includes reading all of the directions, answering the easier questions first (it’s good to start out on a roll, and the easy answers might help you to remember harder questions later), and mapping out your short answer/essay questions before writing.

Remember, you cannot control all of the variables surrounding an important test. However, by addressing and maintaining the variables which you can control, test anxiety might not be eliminated, but can be fairly well managed.

People Watching – What the Conservatives are Saying Now That Bin Laden is Gone

Last week’s Thursday column looked at the presidential hopefuls to emerge from the GOP.  It was interesting to learn that last Saturday, President Obama and Donald Trump were in the same room for the White House Correspondents Dinner in our nation’s capital. Only this time, the images shown around the world were those of Trump being grilled by the president just the day after holding a news conference to produce his birth certificate from Hawaii.

If only we had known what secret the commander-in-chief was hiding that evening. For a second, my Obama as Andrew Shepherd image faded, only to be replaced by the president sidling up to “The Donald” to say…”um, Mr. Apprentice, you think you’re so important. Guess what I’ll be watching on TV tomorrow?”

LIVE from the Situation Room, it’s KILL OSAMA!!!

In his opinion column today, David Squires of the Daily Press (VA) was right on target for noting the irony of Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” being interrupted for Obama’s announcement of bin Laden’s “termination.” There’s poetic justice somewhere in that message.

Like most Americans, I am proud of our troops for taking out the man responsible for the loss of over 3,000 Americans in September of 2001. It is also inspiring to see that the 25 members of Navy SEAL Team 6 assigned to the heroic task are based out of nearby Virginia Beach. Although the members remain anonymous (for now), it looks like a Lt. Commander fired the two shots that cracked Bin Laden’s coconut.

Perhaps the most unique aspects of this event have been 1) measuring the president’s approval bump and 2) seeing how the 2012 presidential hopefuls and pundits have been acting this week.

First, the approval bump. I am a bit surprised to see that the president’s approval rating only went up from 47 to 56 percent, according to the Washington Post’s latest poll. It was more amazing to see more people giving President Bush credit for the slaying of bin Laden, although later polls showed a mild reversal of that trend. To his credit, Bush turned down the offer to meet with the current president today at Ground Zero. Kudos on both sides – Obama, for making the offer and Bush, for declining.

My reasoning for the minor approval rise is that skepticism reigns supreme among the American populace. While many cheer for the events of late Sunday night, there is a feeling that all will be forgotten if gas prices hit $5 a gallon in August. Lest we forget that Bush the first (George H.W.) enjoyed a 90 percent approval rating after the first Iraq war, but ended up losing the next presidential election because Americans were tired of the poor economy. Will history repeat itself? Time will tell.

What remains true is that the cast of presidential hopefuls and prominent talking heads showed different reactions in their public comments this week. There is no doubt that the subject could not be avoided as approximately 56 million people watched the president’s late night address to the American public. What is undeniably true is that any commentator or future candidate with any sense could not go against the grain and say that the raid on Abbottabad was a poor idea. This made for a rare and entertaining glimpse into the thought processes of some people we know.

First in the batter’s box – Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has made a living by bashing the Democrats. Knowing full well that he couldn’t say that the president did the wrong thing, the former Round Mound of Radio took a road less traveled. He was gracious, complimentary and civil, or was he? As quoted from his talk show in Yahoo News on Monday, Limbaugh said, “President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off. You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb as they always do…But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that.” There’s more, but many of his “dittoheads” had already picked up on the gag. Surprisingly, a few serious journalists thought that Limbaugh was somewhat serious, but realized that a talk show host can’t keep 15 million listeners happy by changing course and playing nice.

Other conservative hosts seemed more genuine. As also noted in the same article, Glenn Beck offered congratulations and said “Thank You” to the president twice. Fellow Fox host Sean Hannity called the mission “gutsy” and “the right thing to do.”

Even Trump communicated personal congratulations via statement to ABC News while offering a verbal cease-fire to remember the victims of 9/11. Said Trump, “we should spend the next few days not debating party politics, but in remembrance of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and those currently fighting for our freedom. God Bless America!”

Jon Stewart opened his “Daily Show” on Monday with a monologue that ended with the question, “Can they still do damage?” Stewart answered his own question with “I’m sure. But we’re back, baby.”

Stewart’s response may have been the most noteworthy because of the host’s connection to New York. He lives in lower Manhattan and watched the events of 9/11 play out from his apartment window. His first public response after the tragedy may have been the most surprising as it was a raw showing of tearful emotion from the usually sarcastic Stewart.

Many of the Republican hopeful candidates were low-key this week, and I’d imagine it was part of an effort not to interfere with the event. It’s bad politics to attempt to steal the spotlight. On the other hand, it’s even worse politically to exploit the spotlight which is why the president and White House staffers chose to not make the pictures of Osama’s mutilated body part of anybody’s “Kodak moment.”

Sarah Palin did offer a public response as part of her speech to a group of military veterans in Colorado. In fairness, this event was already scheduled, so it would have been a disservice to the veterans for Palin to drop out. It would have been a greater disservice for the press to avoid capturing her comments. Palin’s method of congratulations was also unique. She credited “the president” for showing “decisive leadership,” but did not call him by name. However, she did mention George W. Bush by name and thanked him for “making the right calls to set up this victory.”

It has been pleasant to see some civility in politics this week, especially when it comes after such a major capture. As the masses of computer files and data are sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA to reach the hands of the other heroes in this mission, one can only wonder. How long will this last?

The Role and Importance of Standardized Testing in the World of Teaching and Training

     In spite of the negative connotation caused by the two words, author and researcher Richard Phelps is a true believer in standardized testing. At the 15^th Congress of the World Association for Educational Research in Marrakesh, Morocco in June of 2007, Phelps presented his theories on the benefits of standardized testing,

     As part of his early remarks, Phelps acknowledges that standardized testing is the “greatest single social contribution of modern psychology, and may be the most useful evaluation method available for human resource-intensive endeavors.” However, he does manage to address both sides of the issue.

     In his research, Phelps brings some interesting data to the table, including a study on the evaluation of student work, which shows an incredible range between the lowest and highest scores in several instances. To my surprise, his studies date from the early 1910’s to today. As the author notes, studies on teacher grading objectivity have been going on for decades, and the results are always the same. As far as standardized testing is concerned, Phelps dates their existence all the way back to the Chinese civil service exam, which began centuries ago.

     It is evident that this author brings much research to the table to show both sides of the issue. He takes the trouble to examine the arguments against “test bias” and “discrimination.” Like any good persuasive arguer, Phelps defends his argument while answering the critics in the process.

The Role and Importance of Standardized Testing in the World of Teaching and Training

     Phelps begins his study by asking one simple question, “Why standardized testing?” He readily admits that they are not perfect evaluation tools, but can provide information that no other evaluation can provide.

     His main argument is a strong one, and the author has surprising evidence backing him up. Phelps’ main supporting argument for standardized testing is that without it, we would have to rely more on individual teacher grading and testing. At face value, this doesn’t seem valid, but there is almost 100 years of research backing up this point. The first study used comes from researchers Starch and Elliott (1912) who made copies of two actual English examinations and sent them to teachers to grade and return. To their surprise, the grades ranged from 50 to 98 percent. Of the 142 teachers used for this study, 14 scored the paper below 80 percent, while 14 scored it above 94.

     Surprised by the results, the pair repeated the procedure with an exam from another content area (Geometry.) The results were more stunning as these grades ranged from 28 to 92 percent. In this case, twenty of the 116 papers were scored below 60 percent, and nine above 85. Later researchers found the same results. In essence, teachers’ marks are an unreliable means of measurement.

     Further research on the topic has enlightened as to why this has occurred. Other studies have shown that American teachers consider “nearly everything” when grading student work, including class participation, perceived effort, student progress, and other factors. In one particular study, it was shown that 66 percent of teachers felt that their perception of a student’s ability should be taken into consideration in awarding the final grade (Frary, Cross, & Weber 1993). Needless to say, standardized tests do not reflect how many absences a student has or how well a student participates in class. There is no room for any type of bias, whether it is gender, ethnic, or class. Phelps wraps up this section of standardized test defense by stating that “it is more than an antidote to biased judgment. We need standardized tests because each of us is a prisoner of our own limited experiences and observations.” He also goes on to say that these tests provide an opportunity to be free of subjectivity, whether it is due to bias or Bayesian (time-saving) shortcuts.

Looking Far Into The Past

     As previously mentioned, Phelps goes far back for research to support his points. His first found use of the standardized test dates back to the administration of the Chinese civil service exam many centuries ago (Zeng, 1999, 8). This is a remedial example of the test, and the author adds that the “scientific” standardized test is actually about 100 years old.

     Because of the long use of standardized tests, Phelps’ second argument is that testing technology has improved at an amazing rate in a brief period. There are many reasons for this, including increased complexity and sophistication in the product, the ability to provide more information for the price, and a better format, with more reliability, fairness, and validity than its predecessors.

     While admitting that quick improvement in a product carries some risk, the author also argues that they have improved in quality and convenience, and actually become more difficult for the average person or policymaker to understand. Phelps does harbor negative feelings toward policy makers, especially when he discusses the No Child Left Behind act. He feels that the newfound complexity of testing for public purposes has been lost on the politicians and policy makers who have chosen other reasons to use standardized testing.

The Debate Continues: Are There Special Interests?

     Phelps continues his study with a long discussion about the ongoing debate with regard to standardized testing, and how the debates are “primitive and one-sided.” He goes on to explain the reason for this by citing a theory from the late economist Mancur Olsen (1965, 1982), which explained the political power of “special interests” in democratic societies.

     Here’s Olsen’s argument. Individuals join specialized groups with political power, such as a professional association of educators. The members receive benefits and become entrenched in the status quo. Increased benefits, such as the absence of standardized testing programs, come at a cost (lowered student achievement.) Over time, the wealthy and powerful groups become more accepting of the faulty system because of the benefits they have received in the past.

     Since there is an extensive breakdown of governance in the educational systems, from the Federal, to state, to local levels, there are numerous opportunities to saturate the country with preferred policy related information, while blocking out contrary points of view. Olsen’s feels that the importance of standardized testing got lost in the political shuffle, and make it a point to argue that the supporting literature is hard to locate. Phelps views this as unnecessary censorship.

Response – Is Phelps Creditable?

     I was impressed with the breadth of Phelps’ findings. It is remarkable to uncover findings from a 90-year-old study and realize that the findings are arguably valid in 2008. Phelps appears more credible by stating that many other studies over the past 90 years have supported the argument of wide variance in teacher grading. I do wish Phelps had chosen to identify more of these studies, but realize that this paper was presented at a global conference and may have required parameters, including a content limit.

     Still, the author does a good job at making his argument for standardized testing and directing his points toward the most explosive topic in education today, the No Child Left Behind Act. Personally, I believe that there can be some teacher bias in grading, but am surprised to find that one credible (I assume) teacher scored a paper 98 while another gave the same paper a 50.

     I am not sure that a national standardized testing system is the best answer.  I am not sure that Phelps is convinced of this either. It appears that his point is that the forces of censorship and suppression should be removed so that the public can have a better look at the benefits of standardized testing. With all of the knowledge in hand, the American public will be in a better position to make up its collective mind. Without all of the information, we leave these decisions to the policymakers and keepers of the status quo who may not have the best credentials to make these decisions.

References

Frary, R. B., Cross, L. H., & Weber, L. J. (1993). Testing and grading practices and opinions of           secondary school teachers of academic subjects: Implications for instruction in measurement, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 23+.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups,

     Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social 

    rigidities, New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

Phelps, R. P. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. New Brunswick, NJ,

    

     USA: Transaction Publishers.

Phelps, R. P., Ed. (2005a). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence

     Erlbaum.

Phelps, R.P. (2007a). The dissolution of education knowledge. Educational Horizons, 85(4),

     232–247.

Phelps, R.P. (2008). Educational achievement testing fallacies, Chapter 3 in R.P. Phelps (Ed.),

     Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC, USA:

     American Psychological Association.

Phelps, R.P. (2008). The role and importance of standardized testing in the world of teaching

    and training. Nonpartisan Education Review / Essays, 4(3). Retrieved [date] from:

    http://npe.educationnews.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.htm

Gauging the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates – Is there a legitimate contender?

Sometimes timing is everything. Last Thursday, I broached the idea of developing a list of potential Republican candidates to compete against President Obama in 2012 while gauging some of my Obama predictions from three years ago. Lo and behold, last Friday, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer weighed in with his “horserace” odds for the party of elephants. After a weekend to digest the scorecard, political watchdog Dick Morris chimed in with his analysis of Krauthammer’s odds – out of professional respect, of course.

But the prognosticating was not limited to the “inside the Beltway” bunch. Even “King of All Media” Howard Stern weighed in about his buddy Donald Trump for the benefit of his Sirius radio audience. Don’t underestimate Stern’s knowledge of politics. For the uninformed, he made a run for the New York governorship against Mario Cuomo in 1994. To the shock of many, he was well entrenched near the top of the leaderboard (as a Libertarian nonetheless!) before the question of personal finances came up. Stern refused to disclose his personal wealth and the momentum quickly faded.

There appears to be agreement on the cast of characters holding a hat in hand. For the sake of argument, and with deference to the professional politicos, here is one person’s opinion of the most likely Republican candidate to Rock the Red (sorry fellow Caps fans!) states.

Just for fun, I’ll even go as far as trying to pick the order of dropout.

First of all, here’s who we won’t see come New Hampshire time:

Donald Trump – as mentioned last week, I am with the group that sees Trump’s run as a publicity stunt. Stern agrees. “I know Donald. He’s not running...it’s a goof!” Admittedly, I find him fun to watch. But, I think Trump accomplished his mission on Wednesday by forcing Obama to hold a press conference to address the birth certificate issue. Speaking of which, how surreal was that??? I was waiting for the Andrew Shepherd moment… “Trump, your 15 minutes are up. My name is Barack Obama and I AM the President!” My guess is “the Donald” claims victory for the conservatives, continues to rant and rave for six more weeks, and then drops out -- not quietly, of course.

Sarah Palin – really, does anyone really see her running? I believe that her presidential aspirations ended the day she quit as governor of Alaska. Yes, quit. Then again, it may have been the day she realized that being paid to stump for others was easier than facing the fire herself. And paid well, indeed. Between the books, TV shows, and appearance fees, Mrs. Palin is poised to possibly earn about $50 million over the next eight years. The good part is, we don’t have to consider voting for her. Not that I was going to anyway. Her interview with Katie Couric spoke volumes without saying a whole lot except the VP candidate was quite obtuse.

Haley Barbour – just dropped out. I don’t know much about Barbour except that he was a well-liked Southern governor in the Clintonian sense. But, he’s not running anyway, so never mind.

Now, for the candidates, in the order they will drop out:

Ron Paul – saw him in the paper today considering a run, which means he probably believes the third time is the charm. It won’t be. Paul might not make it through New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich – I would love to have Gingrich as a history professor. He is usually the brightest bulb in a room. But he is a retread of sorts. Back in 1993-94, the former House speaker enjoyed rock star status and enjoyed every second as the anti-Clinton. Then Clinton beat him at his own game over the government shutdown and the fire subsided. Between the fact that no one under 30 really knows who he is and his previous failures at marriage (a president should be a stable family man), I don’t think he has much of a chance and will be gone before his bus can get out of the Granite state.

Michelle Bachmann – since Palin has not declared herself to be a non-candidate, I don’t see Bachmann having enough time to build momentum after Palin bows out. They appeal to the same voters (Tea Party) which keeps them from being viable if they both run. I don’t know much about Bachmann either, and at this point I should know something without having to watch Fox News.

Mitch Daniels – former governor of Indiana. Good reputation and apparently no major flaws or scandals. Daniels is known for education work as governor, particularly with school choice. He is able to lead, as governorship is a good stepping stone to the White House (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush). I just don’t think he is well known enough and will have some fund raising trouble versus the more experienced campaign machines. But he’ll get a message out and leave a mark for later.

Tim Pawlenty – another former governor (Minnesota). Good reputation and the important Republican players seem to keep mentioning his name, so I think he outlasts Daniels and emerges from the fray as a VP candidate. Morris mentioned something about a Gov. Pawlenty plan enabling Muslims to buy interest-free homes as a liability. I’d like to hear more about. Honestly, I can’t pick him out of a lineup…yet.

Top Two

Mike Huckabee – in 2006, I was attending a Bishop Ireton/St.Mary's Academy High School homecoming with the 25^th reunion (class before mine) being hosted by SMA alumna Kirsten Fedewa. Kirsten has worked on Capitol Hill as a lobbyist and also in politician’s offices, but her business these days has expanded beyond politics. However, five years ago, she had one focus. “I’m working for Mike Huckabee.” My first (and second and third) response was “Who?”  Reply - “The Governor of Arkansas...I’m working on his presidential campaign.” The “Who?” was followed by “What?” Actually, Kirsten was handling his press and public relations in the D.C. area among other things. She must know her stuff as millions learned about the Arkansas minister turned governor.

I like Huckabee. His show might be the only one I watch on Fox. He is honest and wholesome and plays the bass! He was the governor of Arkansas and begins front office experience to the race. His surprise showing in 2008 shows an ability to appeal to the masses and his show of humility on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” was priceless. “Governor Huckabee, you know that you have been mathematically eliminated from the race?”… “Oh.”

Barbour’s departure opens up the South for Huckabee.

Mitt Romney – another experienced campaign veteran. Former governor of Massachusetts. Some complain about his failed health care plan in the Bay State, but it’s better to learn from one’s mistake as governor than on Pennsylvania Ave. Devout Mormon. I don’t see his religion being a negative among centrists. I see many others concentrating on his role as a family man.

Also, Romney is appealing because of his vast wealth. A candidate who gives the appearance of invincibility when it comes to needing money always draws attention. It’s hard to dislike a candidate willing to invest tens (probably hundreds if he lasts long enough) of millions of his own money into a campaign. He can wait out the pretenders.

Romney has seen and done it. Back in 2008, there was a prevailing feeling that it was McCain’s turn. Give the war hero and long-time Senator a chance. There is no sentimental favorite this time.

My hunch is that these two will duke it out through the second half of the campaign season and one will emerge as the candidate. I’d give Romney the slightest of nudges.

Who do I think will win the general election in 2012? Stay tuned.