Matthew Dowd, who led President Bush's campaign for reelection in 2004, recently told the New York Times that "The only things that are going to change the equation of the election are the four debates." This is due to the plethora of partisan and biased media sources that the public is confronted with every day. As Dowd pointed out, "The average person has 90 channels. They get all the dot-coms. They all get a newspaper. There is so much flow of information that they just begin to discount it all."

And for that, we can breathe a sigh of relief, although I fear that Dowd might give the average person too much credit in saying the media will be depreciated. But if the most influential factor in this election will be the candidates' own voices - through debates and interviews - then I hope the moderators and interviewers will break with the improprieties of the past several months and truly give both sides an even playing field.

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?  Those used to be a Republican buzzwords, but they've faded from the lexicon lately.  

The absence was even pronounced in John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night.  According to the transcript, President Bush was never referred to by name.  As amazing as this is, the candidate of the President's party running to succeed him in office wants change but has nothing whatsoever to say about the current office holder.  Unless McCain is arguing that Bush actually made no decisions during the last eight years, a conspiracy theory I've heard advanced in other quarters (though generally as a joke), at some point the man has to be held accountable for his actions.

I had the same problem eight years ago when I decided not to vote for Gore because as an idealistic and new attorney, not to mention former federal law enforcement officer, I couldn't accept his refusal to publicly condemn President Clinton for his perjury.  For this voter, some things just need to be said publicly.  Gore needed to do it then, and McCain needed to do it Thursday.

McCain is now in a similarly awkward position, but one that I'd hoped his highly-touted ethics and maverick streak would have guided him through.  He claims to be an agent of change, but in this speech couldn't or wouldn't renounce those individuals who brought us to this point.  A campaign of change implies that things have gone wrong, but a refusal to identify the causes of the needs for change suggest a state of denial that make his pledge of change seem lukewarm at best.

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech, given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention. I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric. All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.

First semi-conscious reaction to this morning's big news: McCain's chosen a Monty Python alum as his running mate?

Slightly more caffeinated reaction: McCain's chosen who as his running mate? 

Sarah Palin?  OK, according to her entry at Wikipedia, apparently she has some very strong reformer credentials, and has a history of bucking the Republican establishment.  I can see both elements attracting the attention of the McCain campaign.

But doesn't her selection cripple the McCain argument that Obama's lack of experience should preclude him from being elected President?  She has no national political experience, and has only been in statewide office since her election as governor of Alaska in 2006.  I think the pendulum on experience may have swung back to a position where the Obama campaign can use that 3 a.m. phone call advertisement that Clinton used against Obama during the primaries. 

I'm still looking to learn more about Mrs. Palin, but I have to be honest in thinking that my first reaction is that the nomination offers nothing substantive toward governance of the country, but is simply a brazen appeal to those demographics still upset the Hillary Clinton isn't on the Democratic Party ticket in some role.

Is it fair to label John McCain's presumptive presidential nomination as tantamount to Bush's third term in the White House?  I thought about this recently after seeing a bumper sticker proclaiming the message.  The McCain camp has also taken notice of this particular line of attack on their candidate's viability.

The matter interests me because if the senator from Illinois hopes to win his bid for the highest elected office, won't his political strategists and advisors need to understand what draws an undecided voter toward Senator McCain as much as away from him? 

The bumper sticker routine, I believe, simply won't work on voters already likely to vote for Senator Obama.  These slogans attempt to discourage the undecided, as well as those leaning toward McCain.  But does this particular insult work in that vein?   

The most obvious premise of the message taps into Bush's increasingly high disapproval ratings.  Since a majority of Americans have repudiated any support Mr. Bush gained before his last term in office, the thinking goes, extending his stay would be political failure.  This idea, however, "preaches to the choir" and probably won't serve to sway voters.

Trina Boice, one of our two registered Republicans here at Citizen Voices is moving to Las Vegas. We are now in search of a Republican who can blog weekly on local and national political issues.

Until we pick our next political pundit, we're going to feature a guest Republican blogger each week. Potential bloggers can send their resume, writing samples and guest post to Nicole Lozare at .

View Craigslist job posting for more details.

Interesting to see in the news Tuesday that the Secretary of State is investigating complaints that some voters are making regarding party affiliations. According to the Associated Press report, some voters have complained that their party affiliations were changed when they filed address changes with the DMV.

Having worked at a poll during California's February primary, I can say there was certainly more confusion over party registration than I expected to see.

Not just independents concerned about being unable to vote in the Republican Party's closed primary, but self-professed independents finding themselves registered with the American Independent Party and vice versa. There were probably some confused Democrats, or wannabe Democrats, as well, but they didn't make as much of an impact on me as the others did.

Given that voter confusion in Florida arguably determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, I guess it's only natural that election officials are going to have a heightened sensitivity to it during this election cycle. But from where I was sitting, it seemed like a certain percentage of the electorate was going to be confused no matter what precautions were taken.

-Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.