Old joke.

There's a special place reserved in Hell for salespeople who use the phrase "new and improved".

If only because while that seems to want to entice you with promises of heretofore unparalleled levels of gloss and/or excellence, it can also be spun to imply that what you've been heretofore offered is old and not so hot.

So, I won't be using that phrase as I share the following with you.

The Center Line is no more.

More to the point, The Center Line will now be known as...

"politics in plain english"....

...and can be found by either clicking this link

http://politicsinplainenglishsep.blogspot.com

or the link at the masthead of this page.

The obvious question.

Why the change?

It occurred to me as I wrote pieces for The Center Line that I wanted to...

1) broaden the range of discussion and debate, something that trying to always find "the center" made more difficult...

2) try to be of some use to everyday folks who profess a disdain for politics, but who are, often, simply unclear as to what the hell politicans are talking about at any given time.

So, to paraphrase an old beer commercial, I hope you'll find "politics in plain english" to..."taste great...and be more filling....".

It will still, I hope, be insightful, thoughtful and, ideally, entertaining.

But I won't insult your intelligence by promising it will be "new and improved."

Though I think we both know that's pretty much a given.

"...And No IPod, TV, Video Games or Long Range Missile Tests For A Month, You Hear Me?...."

There's an obvious problem here.

More on that shortly.

Pyongyang, North Korea (CNN) -- Officials from the United States and the United Nations say the U.N. Security Council will meet Friday to discuss North Korea's botched long-range missile launch -- an act U.N. officials called deplorable and destabilizing despite its failure.

Amid concerns that North Korea will try to recover from the embarrassing failure with a nuclear test or military move, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned the secretive country's regime not to "undertake further provocative actions that will heighten tension in the region."

The missile launch was heralded by North Korea as "an inspiring deed and an event of historic significance." The missile broke apart shortly after launch Friday morning, then fell into the ocean.

North Korea said the missile was designed to carry an observation satellite into orbit. But the United States, South Korea and Japan said that was a cover for a long-range ballistic missile test.

The launch drew condemnation from United States and countries in the region, as well as an unusual admission of failure from Pyongyang. The normally secretive regime has previously insisted that failed launches had actually been successful.

The U.N. Security Council will meet Friday on the launch, two U.N. diplomats and a U.S. official told CNN. The meeting had previously been scheduled, U.S. officials said.

Before the launch,, diplomats had warned that Pyongyang would face further isolation if it went ahead.

The U.S. official said that, despite the launch's failure, "it will not change our response."

The last time Pyongyang carried out what it described as a satellite launch, in April 2009, the U.N. Security Council condemned the action and demanded that it not be repeated.

That rocket traveled 2,300 miles before its third stage fell into the Pacific Ocean. And in 2006, a missile failed after about 40 seconds in flight.

Governments insisted that Pyongyang would still face consequences for flaunting U.N. resolutions.


It should, in fairness, be noted that the United Nations response falls, at the very least, into the category of something better than nothing.

Not much better, though.

Which brings us to the problem mentioned earlier.

Sanctions, like any other form of punishment, are intended to serve as notice that future similar behavior will not be tolerated, resulting, ideally, in a modification of said behavior.

Think grounding a teenager for missing curfew.

Here's the problem.

The punishment won't move the transgressor one inch toward that behavior modification if they are, for example, psychotic and, therefore, unable to recognize the fair, just and right thing to do.

Like, for instance, a drug addled teenager.

Or anyone in power, at any given time, in North Korea.

"...There's Never A Door Number Three Around When You Need One...."

Today's spot-on political insight comes from a guy whose name you won't hear being bounced around on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC.

Frank R. Stockton.

The more obsessive compulsive among us will, of course, already be typing their way to a Google answer to the obvious question....

"Who is Frank R. Stockton?"

For the more reflective and patient of the rest of us, the answer will be forthcoming.

First, today's breaking political news.

Rick Santorum has called it quits.

That, of course, pretty much amounts to the declaration that the fall presidential campaign will pitt Mitt Romney against Barack Obama.

And, not for nothin', but one interesting sidebar is that while all the major news organizations are already gearing up for that campaign, the candicacies of, at the very least, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are still, technically, alive, if not well.

The point being the obvious reflection on the impotence of Gingrich's efforts, given that he has been dismissed without so much as a see ya later, legislator.

Meanwhile, predictably, the news site comment sections, blog sites and social network sites are already Draino worthy glogged with liberals who can't stomach the idea of four years of Mitt and conservatives who can't stomach four more years of Barack, even before the wheels on the campaign bus begin to go round and round.

This writer will not be contributing any respective raspberries to that particular cacophany crop.

Primarily because a clear cut disdain for one side or the other in any choice situation requires a clear cut preference for one side or the other.

And barring some dramatic, last minute convention shenanigans, this year's contest really reads more like a new work from...

...wait for it...

...Frank R. Stockton.

The lady or the tiger?

The elephant or the donkey.

Six of one.

"...When All The Other Slices Are Moldy, The Stale One Don't Seem So Stale..."

Got Gallagher on the brain today.

And not, as you might suspect, because the veteran comedian, famous for his watermelon smashing "Sledge-O-Matic" schtick has been in the news because of his health problems.

But because of some schtick he did a long time ago, in one of his Showtime Channel concerts that I think, in one of those whimsical ways that only irony can provide, is a pretty insightful political perspective.

That insight, and the applicable connecting of the dots, momentarily.

(CNN)   (Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan.")

-- The Republican presidential primary hasn't exactly overflowed with talent. In December, it was a roll call of the undesirable Right: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Huntsman and Bachmann -- a list so long and bizarre that Count Dracula could have slipped in on the end and no one would have noticed. Except, as the citizens of Chicago will tell you, the dead always vote Democrat.

Now, we're down to a final three, discounting Ron Paul, who, I'm guessing, is only staying in the race to collect air miles. Although the talent pool has shrunk, it has gotten no deeper. As Mitt Romney suffers defeat after defeat at the hands of Rick Santorum, whose chances of winning this thing aren't high, his negatives mount up, and the president looks stronger by the day. The Republican Party is divided and in danger of becoming out of touch.

It didn't have to be this way. If Sarah Palin had entered the contest, I'd hypothesize two alternative realities. One, she'd have the nomination sewn up by now. Two, she'd be running even in the polls with the president.

What have proved to be problems for the top three candidates wouldn't have been problems for Palin. For starters, she has none of Newt Gingrich's intellectual hubris. There's no way Palin would have promised to put a mine on the moon or suggest arresting judges who make decisions that are too liberal. Her conservatism is far more domestic and down-to-Earth.

She's also more disciplined than Santorum. Although we'll probably be talking about them into the next century, Palin's only two serious public gaffes in 2008 happened when she was unable to name a newspaper and was stumped by the Bush doctrine, both slips a product of ignorance. Santorum, on the other hand, is guilty of knowing his own mind all too well, offering unwelcome opinions on everything from the evils of hard-core pornography to the racial politics of the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

Compare the response Palin gave to questions about her attitude toward evolution -- "I think it should be taught as an accepted principle, and I say that also as the daughter of a schoolteacher" -- with Santorum's claim that Satan ... has attacked America.

It's Palin who seems to have a better sense of the limited role that faith should play in politics and a better idea of when to keep her mouth shut. Moreover, she would never tell a journalist that he was talking "bull***t," even if she did congratulate Rick Santorum for doing so. Contrary to the media narrative, even at her most accident-prone, Palin has always been a classy, well-choreographed performer.

Lacking the foibles of Gingrich and Santorum, Palin would have been a far more effective anti-Romney candidate because her strengths accentuated Romney's weaknesses. Romney is known as the Etch A Sketch candidate; Palin is aggressively authentic. Romney is seen by many as a moneyed elitist; Palin is the conservative class warrior, happy to slam the "crony capitalism" that benefits both big labor and big business. Romney's limitations have been revealed, one by one, in the course of the primary campaign; Palin was well-vetted by the press in 2008 and has nothing left to say or do that would surprise us.

Love her or loathe her, we all know who Palin is. Her weaknesses, being old news, wouldn't have dominated the primary narrative like Bain Capital or Seamus the dog, made famous by his terrifying ride atop Romney's car. Palin would have spent the past three months attacking her opponents. Then she would have turned her guns on the president.

While it's reasonable to speculate that Palin could have gathered a much stronger anti-Mitt coalition earlier -- and broken out as the GOP front-runner sooner -- it's probably a bigger stretch to say that she would be running stronger against Obama right now.

The last national polling done on a hypothetical Palin candidacy was in September, and that showed the president beating her by double digits. Daily Kos did the math and gleefully calculated that Palin would win just seven states in November, and even Mississippi would be a tossup.

But those polls asked the public what they thought of a candidate who hadn't declared, who wasn't representing herself in the debates and who was still solely defined by the 2008 race. Guesstimating how well she would have done had she entered the 2012 contest is tough, but considering that at least some polls show both Romney and Santorum within a few points of Obama despite all their problems, it's not unreasonable to presume that Palin would run just as well.

Subtract Santorum's gaffes or Romney's elitism, and she might even do a little better. Polls suggest that many voters agree with Romney's approach to the economy but think he lacks empathy for the struggles facing the middle-class. Were she in the race, you can bet your bottom dollar that Palin wouldn't score so low on compassion and authenticity.

Most important, Palin has the character and reputation necessary to break out of the Republican Party's demographic prison. In matchups with Obama, Romney's core vote is financially comfortable seniors. He pulls even among all men and folks aged 35-54.

The Republicans desperately need a candidate who can appeal to lower-income voters, who can rally men, who can gain women's votes, who can bring out conservatives in large numbers and who can appeal to a younger demographic. All these things happened in the 2010 midterms, when the GOP made inroads into blue-collar households and middle-class suburbs on a policy platform virtually embodied by the Alaskan maverick.

The GOP needs a Tea Party candidate -- either Sarah Palin or someone very like her. Alas, it's going to have to wait until 2016 to get its rogue.


Back in the 80's, in one of his shows, Gallagher lampooned a familiar TV commercial of the times, one trumpeting the usefulness of the well known hemmorrhoid ointment, Preparation H.

While the satire loses a little here, owing to the fact that you are reading, rather than seeing, what he did, here's how it played out.

Gallagher noted that the "slogan" for the product was "shrinks swollen tissues". In demonstrating that slogan, the comic held up his hands, far apart and as he spoke the word "shrinks", he brought his hand together until they were only twelve or so inches apart.

And then, sardonically observed, "if this (hands spread, once again, very far apart) is your problem, this (hands brought back to twelve inches or so apart) is no answer."

Point made, generous laughter and applause signaled a clear understanding on the part of the audience.

Fast forward thirty years.

Mr. Stanley writes an articulate essay on the merists of Sarah Palin, his essential premise, apparently, being that of the office seekers the Republican party is offering up this time around, Palin is clearly a better choice pretty much quality for quality.

The less sophisticated among us might be tempted to slap the classic "lesser of the evils" label on Mr. Stanley's assertion.

Precocious rapscallion that I am, I'm more inclined to paraphrase a noted political philosopher and legendary demolisher of large fruit.

If they are your problem, she is no answer.

You'll just have to imagine what I'm doing with my hands.

"...If Only We Could Just Push A Button...Oh....Wait....."

Some of us are good with machines.

Some of us are not.

Clearly, though, there is one machine that very few of us seem to be able to use effectively.

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't spoken to President Obama in nearly two years.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1976, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

When she announced suddenly in February that she was not going to run for reelection - after three terms in the US Senate and a previous 14 years in the House of Representatives - colleagues and commentators alike were stunned.

"I think a lot of the frustration frankly in our party, in the Tea Party challenges or even Occupy Wall Street is really a reflection of our failure to solve the major problems in our country," said Snowe. "It's become all about the politics, and not the policy. It's not about governing, it's about the next election."

So has this Congress failed the country on those critical questions?

"Absolutely," Snowe asserted. "You have to sit down and talk to people with whom you disagree," said Snowe. " And that is not what is transpiring at a time when we desperately need that type of leadership."

Sen. Snowe admitted that her party has changed since she entered politics, and that she is a rare moderate in the Republican caucus. That said, she is adamant that her core beliefs are as Republican now as they ever were.

"I haven't changed," she said. "I represent what I think is a traditional Republican… a limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, individual freedom and liberty."


Snowe's primarly lament, that the process has become all politics and no governing, is, unfortunately, nothing new.

At any given time in our history, the political process, by its nature, has usurped the effort to serve the common good.

What is particularly ominous about Snowe's spin is the undeniable conclusion of its premise. That the collateral damage of the bickering and bitching is now causing genuinely dedicated and committed public servants, regardless of party or platform, to shake heads, roll eyes, throw up hands and walk away.

As one does, at some point, when the machine they are laboring to work with, or around, simply resists any attempt to be fixed and becomes much more hindrance than help.

Common sense, a commodity rarely found on either extreme side of any issue but, most often, more likely found near the center line, practically screams out that what is needed here is the realization that the political/governing machine is beyond repair, beyond a major overhaul, in need of, put bluntly, replacement.

That's obviously the what.

The how, of course, is the Rubik's Cube.

A machine, in the most literal sense, of exquisiste simplicity.

But one that vexes all but the most gifted of users.

The irony, bordering on tragedy, in all of this, of course, is that the founders provided us, a long, long time ago, with a another device that would and could, if used properly, very possibly get the trains running on time once again.

The machine that, in a sense, could control all the others.

The machine that the founders put not in the hands of politicians, but, in fact, in our own.

But, clearly, from the looks of things, we haven't yet mastered it.

The voting machine.

"...And If You Can't Afford A Bounce House, A Voting Booth Gives You The Same Laughs For Free..."

It should come as no surprise that a toy has stirred up a political brouhaha.

After all, hasn't the whole tone of national politics been more than just a little childish in recent months?

Top Romney adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, said earlier this week that the campaign will "hit a reset button" to take on Obama in the fall if Romney wins the GOP nomination. He added, "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."

They said the adviser's remarks bring into question whether Romney will drop his conservative stances, some of which are different from others he'd taken earlier in his career, in favor of more moderate positions ahead of the general election.

On Wednesday, Santorum's campaign posted a photo on Twitter of the candidate using an Etch A Sketch, saying it showed him "studying up on (Romney's) policy positions."

Romney, who scored the prized endorsement of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday, explained the Etch A Sketch remark by saying, "Organizationally, a general election campaign takes on a different profile."

"The issues I am running on will be exactly the same," he said. "I am running as a conservative Republican. I was a conservative Republican governor. I will be running as a conservative Republican nominee, at that point hopefully, for president. The policies and positions are the same."


Only time will tell whether there will be a whole lotta shakin goin' on when Romney becomes the nominee.

It occurs to those of us at The Center Line, though, that this whole injection of toy talk is exactly the breath of fresh air that this pretty lame campaign has been needing for a while.

Because people's love for politics cuts a wide path across a wide range, everything from who cares to can't live without it and everything in between.

But who among us doesn't love toys?

And what a wonderful variety of toys would fit right in to the current poltical climate?

Seriously, Eric Fehrnstrom is probably in hot water with the boss for the whole Etch A Sketch remark, but we civilians can all comfortably exchange knowing glances and winks that the changing of the picture as desired or needed is as much a part of the American political process as bumper stickers and those robo calls that make you want to punch any or all of the founding fathers.

So, the Etch A Sketch is a natural.

Not to mention...

Slinky...simple, basic, essentially mindless fun...much like any speech given by any candidate at any given time....

Lincoln Logs...an American tradition, appealing to our sense of patriotism, allowing the candidate to build something that, initially, impresses us but, ultimately is time and effort wasted on something that has no practical use...much like any policy platform offered by any candidate at any given time...

The hula hoop...providing not only the opportunity, but the rationalization, for moving to the left and moving to the right in order to make the thing work....much like any political philosophy offered by any candidate at any given time...

Twister...this one is a no brainer....picture any political campaign of two or more candidates and this is an almost automatic and obvious visual...not to mention the cool red state/blue state subtext...

Transformers...another obvious choice, affording the candidates the opportunity to create something to ostensibly dazzle us...but change its entire form in a flash, just in case we find the original offering objectionable in any way...

and last but, certainly, not least...the magic 8 ball..the "political edition" of this classic though would employ the use of only five of the original's twenty answer options....covering the candidate for pretty much any specific question we had in mind to ask...

● Reply hazy, try again
● Ask again later
● Better not tell you now
● Cannot predict now
● Concentrate and ask again

One more toy, by the way, that just missed the cut here.

The Easy Bake Oven.

Given that in any given election year, we get fed quite enough as it is.

"..The Obvious Joke Here Is 'You Talkin' To Me?...', But We're Really Better Than That Around Here...."

Newt Gingrich is a pretty educated guy.

He has several degrees, among them a B.A., a Master's and a PhD, all in one kind of history or another and he was, at one time, on the track to becoming a professor until politics came a callin' in the early 1970's.

So, whatever level of game he might, or might not, have, its pretty clear that he's a pretty smart fellow.

Obviously, though, his expertise is in history and not in grammar.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert De Niro says he meant no offense when he joked at a presidential fundraiser featuring Michelle Obama that America might not be ready for a white first lady.

"My remarks, although spoken with satirical jest, were not meant to offend or embarrass anyone — especially the first lady," De Niro said in a statement.

The tough-talking star of "Taxi Driver," ''Raging Bull," ''Casino," and "Meet the Parents" was host of the re-election fundraiser Monday night in New York. He opened by listing the wives of Republicans running for president.

"Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney," De Niro said. "Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?"

The crowd of big-dollar donors waiting to hear from the nation's first black first lady roared in approval, and De Niro finished: "Too soon, right?"

The joke drew criticism Tuesday from Newt Gingrich, who said the racial reference to the Republican candidates' wives was "inexcusable" and demanded an apology from President Barack Obama.

The White House referred questions to Obama's re-election campaign. Mrs. Obama's campaign spokeswoman Olivia Alair called the joke "inappropriate" but declined further comment.

Prejuidice, especially in the form of racism is, to any reasonably intelligent person, obviously anathema.

There is a reasonable case to be made, though, that Newt's criticism is both off center and proof positive that expertise in history does not a grammatical expert make.

rid·i·cule/ˈridiˌkyo͞ol/
Noun: The subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision.

No one who was present at the function where DeNiro spoke, including Michele Obama, seems to think for a single second that any mockery or derision was involved here.

And Newt's criticism of the joke is an obvious sign that the once upon a time professor doesn't understand a subtle, but key, difference involved.

It's one thing to laugh with ourselves, and each other, about our respective differences.

It's another thing entirely to ridicule each other about those differences.

And, come on, guys, do we think for a single minute that the erudite, triple college degreed Mr. Gingrich doesn't understand that?

Then again, perhaps his command of grammatical context and language definition is more expert that we think.

op·por·tun·ist/ˌäpərˈt(y)o͞onist/
Noun: A person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by principles or plans.

There's some plain English we can all understand.