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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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/ˈridiËŒkyo͞ol/
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/ˌäpÉ™rˈt(y)o͞onist/
Noun: A person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by principles or plans.
WASHINGTON -- Citing new analysis of a photo that could show wreckage of Amelia Earhart's plane, the Obama administration on Tuesday said it was joining a search this summer to hopefully solve the mystery of America's greatest female aviator.
"We can be as optimistic and even audacious as Amelia Earhart," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a ceremony in Washington, D.C., to announce U.S. support for the expedition. "There is great honor and possibility in the search itself."
The search by The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery will focus on the remote island of Nikumaroro, in what is now the Pacific nation of Kiribati.
The group believes Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan might have managed to land on the island, then known as Gardner Island, and that they could have survived for a short time after disappearing on July 2, 1937.
Other historians believe they crashed into the ocean. But conspiracy theories, including claims that they were U.S. government agents captured by the Japanese before World War II, abound despite having been largely debunked.
New analysis of a photo taken at Nikumaroro three months after the disappearance shows what some people believe could be a strut and wheel of the plane protruding from the water, the group says. The photo was not immediately released to the media on Tuesday but the hypothesis is that the plane crashed on a reef before eventually being washed deeper into the sea.
The group hopes that probes down the reef slope will reveal larger aircraft parts such as the engines lying in a dim "twilight zone" about 300 yards below the oceansurface.
Renowned oceanographer Robert Ballard, who discovered the wreckage of the Titanic and the Bismarck and is advising the Earhart expedition, said the new analysis of the photograph could be the equivalent of a "smoking gun" as it narrows the search area from tens of thousands of square miles to a manageable size.
In 2010, bone fragments were found on the island that the group believes might be of Earhart or Noonan. Other artifacts have been recovered there as well that suggest the two might have lived for days or weeks after landing on a reef.
The privately funded group is putting up $500,000 for the search. The U.S. won't provide money but will offer limited logistical support. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood joined Clinton at the ceremony.
Ric Gillespie, the executive director of the group, said the new search is scheduled to last for 10 days in July and will use state-of-the-art underwater robotic submarines and mapping equipment. The Discovery Channel will film the expedition for a television documentary, he said. He acknowledged that the evidence was circumstantial but "strong" but stopped well short of predicting success.
"The most important thing is not whether we find the ultimate answer or what we find, it is the way we look," he said. "We see this opportunity to explore ... the last great American mystery of the 20th century as a vehicle for demonstrating how to go about figuring out what is true."
"Back in 1937, in the painful recovery from the Great Depression, Amelia Earhart's courage and determination inspired the American people," he added. "Well, hard times are here again and we need that type of courage and determination again...we're going to try our best to find her, not for ourselves, but for you," the public.
The expedition will coincide with the 75th anniversary of Earhart's departure on the ill-fated attempt to become the first woman to fly around the world.
The headline in this story is, obviously, the possibilty that the mystery of Amelia Earhart will finally be solved.
Given the tone and texture of the political landscape lo these past few years and especially these past few months, I can't help but wonder if it's only a matter of minutes before the Republicans go flying, engines roaring, into full critic mode and strafe the Obama administration for using taxpayer dollars to assist in the search.
Better things to do with the money, etc, etc.
Given the nature of this chapter in American history and the surrounding mystery, it would be a shame if partisan politics reared its ugly head here.
Around here, we have three hopes.
First, that the mystery will, at last, be solved.
Second, that the anti-Obama camp takes the high road and keeps politics out of it.
Should their flight plan include lambasting and below the belt flying, though, a third hope remains at the ready.
That if they do discover substantial wreckage verifying that solves the mystery of Amelia Earhart, that the first substantial wreckage they find is the right wing.
That would pretty much shut them up, don't you think?
Now here's a take on the take on what it will take for Romney to seal the deal.
Given that pretty much every poll taken on the planet indicates that, barring some unforeseen drama or disaster, Obama will defeat Romney and win re-election, it seems not unreasonable to suggest that all the strife and struggling going on within the Republican party is pretty much like going toe toe to with someone to get dibs on the best deck chair on the Titanic.
Which, if you're a Republican watching the whole process with a disheartened sense of dismay, probably accounts for that sinking feeling your're experiencing.
While campaigning Wednesday ahead of the island's primary on Sunday, Santorum told a newspaper that for Puerto Rico to become "a state of the United States, English must be the principal language."
There is currently no law declaring an official language of the United States, though several attempts have been made to give English that designation. Thirty-one states have passed laws mandating English as their official language. The Constitution also makes no mention of a language test for territories or properties that wish to become states.
Putting aside any inevitable, knee jerk references to poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, let's direct our attention to a finer point of Santorum's assertion.
Just what kind, exactly, of English is he talking about?
Is he talking about west coast English, which comes in a veritable syllabic smorgasboard from "oh, yeah, there's been a lot of rain in Seattle this year" to "whoa, dude, you must be from out of town cause it's like totally pronounced "LaCienega" not Laseenegga"
Or is he talking about talking mid American English, which runs the grammatical gamut from "oh, yah, we've had a lot of rain here in the Twin Cities this year" to "well, here in Missouri, we correct that squeak by securing the floor boards to the joist there". ?
Or, perhaps, Santorum would have us all dialoguing Dixie-esquely. "Well, now, don't know how ya'll feel about it, but down here in Alabama, we voted for that Santorum fella, cause we agree that them Puerto Ricans need to be talkin English good before we let em in...you know...if we gotta let em in at all, ya know."
And, of course, let's not rule out the possiblity that Santorum thinks the most American of English is spoken with no greater eloquence than that most American of melting pots, New York City. "Hey, whatta you lookin' at?"
Giving the red, white and blue benefit of the doubt to the guy, let's all agree that Rick Santorum's heart is the right place in his belief that America should stay as American as Americans can keep it.
But if he is sincere in his belief that English should be the primary language spoken in Puerto Rico before statehood is granted, then it seems only fair that Puerto Rico be instructed as to just exactly what English that might be.
And how is that to be determined?
Perhaps our fellow citizens from the Empire State could offer an assist.
Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump have drawn the ire of PETA after photos surfaced showing the brothers on a wild game hunting trip in Zimbabwe last year.
TMZ first posted photos from the trip under the headline, "Donald Trump's Sons Ignite War Over Animal Butchery." During the hunting trip, the Trump sons reportedly killed a number of exotic animals, including an elephant, crocodile, kudu, civet cat and waterbuck.
The photos were criticized by the animal rights organization PETA, who said in a statement to Hollywood Life:
"Like all animals, elephants, buffalo, and crocodiles deserve better than to be killed and hacked apart for two young millionaires' grisly photo opportunity. If the young Trumps are looking for a thrill, perhaps they should consider skydiving, bungee jumping, or even following in their anti-hunting father's footsteps and taking down competing businesses—not wild animals. If the Trumps want to help villagers, they have plenty of resources at their disposal."
Trump was quick to defend his sons, telling TMZ, "My sons love hunting. They're hunters and they've become good at it. I know that anything they did was 100% OK in terms of the hunting community." However, Trump was equally quick to note that he himself does not share in the sport, saying, "I am not a believer in hunting and I'm surprised they like it."
In one of the more controversial photos, Donald Jr. is seen grinning broadly while holding the severed tail of an elephant in his hands. He defended his actions on his Twitter account, saying that he was simply taking part in a local custom.
Trump Jr. has been actively defending his actions to his 120,000 followers, along with getting into a few spats with readers. In one update, Trump Jr. writes, "I don't apologize to cater to public opinion when I did nothing wrong. To do so would be to sell myself out."
It goes without saying that PETA's sole reason for existing is to get bunged about pretty much anything and everything that people do to animals that doesn't include lavish bedding, monogrammed clothing and/or gourmet pet food.
So, like the dog that craps in the slipper, PETA is just doing what comes naturally.
And while there's nothing funny about cruelty, be it inflicted on beast or man, there is a comedy lurking just beneath the skin of this story.
Cause you gotta wonder if this tempest in a petpot would be bubbling up to a boiling point if The Donald II was proudly holding up, for all to see, instead of the severed tail of an elephant....
...the severed tail of a donkey.
The headline we got was "Donald Trump's Sons Ignite War Over Animal Butchery."
The headline more fitting is "Trump Tykes Murder GOP Mascot".
Every now and then, it occurs to me that a lot of people don't really understand the minutiae of the American political process.
And, so, every now and then, it occurs to me that while I am not a political professional, I am reasonably versed in that aforementioned minutiae, a lay expert, if you will, and perhaps I can provide a service by "educating" folks a little about said process.
I'm tempted to call it "Politics for Dummies" but, somehow, that sounds redundant.
In that spirit, here's a quick "where things stand", suitable for civilian comprehension.
"Right wing" means conservative.
"Left wing" means liberal.
"Moderate" (either right wing or left wing) means trying to be all things to all people by attempting to walk down the center line of any issue (much like I profess to do here on "The Center Line", but, hey, let's not kid ourselves, there's really no such thing as the true center of anything).
Democrats, as a rule, are left wingers.
Republicans, as a rule, are right wingers.
Moderates in either party tend to piss off as many people as they impress so their efforts are, ultimately, a wash.
Barack Obama is a liberal.
Rick Santorum is a conservative.
Mitt Romney is a moderate. (see the above definition/interpretation of moderate and apply accordingly).
States with a lot of big cities tend to be liberal.
States with a lot of small towns and/or rural areas tend to be conservative.
Mississippi and Alabama are states with a lot of small towns and/or rural areas.
Rick Santorum kicked Mitt Romney's ass yesterday in primaries held in Mississippi and Alabama.
Obviously, people in Mississippi and Alabama perfer conservatives to moderates.
Newt Gingrich is a conservative.
He didn't win anything.
But his concession speech sounded like a victory speech.
And he's not, at this writing, quitting.
To sum up.
Santorum, conservative, wins in conservative Mississippi and Alabama.
Romney, moderate, loses to Santorum in conservative Mississippi and Alabama.
This means conservatives don't like moderates.
Gingrich, conservative, wins nothing but refuses to quit.
First, here's what's to be said that I couldn't say better myself.
Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."
(CNN) -- Super Tuesday was rough for Mitt Romney. The modest margin of his victory in Ohio was humiliating enough, especially since he outspent winner Rick Santorum 5 to 1. But the exit polls give an even bleaker reading of the night.
Even if Mitt does end up winning the nomination, he'll inherit a divided, shrunken party, one that increasingly feels like it's on the brink of swapping its policy platform for the Book of Leviticus. Romney has a lot of work to do to unite, expand and update the GOP before he stands a chance of unseating Obama.
What happened? Super Tuesday has traditionally been the front-runner's firewall, the opportunity to garner enough delegates to establish an insurmountable lead. This should have been true in 2012. Only four states out of 10 were regarded as competitive: Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Rick Santorum shouldn't have run particularly well in any of them. Besides losing Michigan and Arizona last week, Santorum's negative media coverage has suggested he's on the losing side of the new culture war: a perfect candidate for 1952, when there was still a national debate about how early your daughter should be home from a date.
Still, Romney could only manage a narrow victory in Ohio, while he lost Oklahoma, North Dakota and Tennessee handsomely. No GOP "front-runner" has done this badly at this stage in the contest since 1976. To compare, in 2000 George W. Bush took Ohio by 58% to 37%, shortly after losing the Michigan and Arizona primaries. Even Mitt's 60% to 40% victory in Virginia was pretty poor, given that his sole opponent there was Ron Paul, a Republican who leans libertarian. (Gingrich and Santorum failed to make the ballot.)
As for Santorum, his performance will keep him running right through March. The same goes for Newt Gingrich, who won Georgia easily and is playing a long game in delegates.
Newt says he's happy just to collect delegates and chip away at Romney's lead. He announced cheerfully that he would be launching a "March Momentum Money Bomb" on Wednesday, the next step in a candidacy that is probably actually helping Romney a little by dividing the right. His fantasy that he could be the nominee was further enabled by the fact that he's finally been granted Secret Service protection, like the big boys.
Assuming that Romney is still the likely nominee after Super Tuesday, what has he inherited? His party is divided in a substantial, demographic way. The youngsters prefer Ron Paul. "Very conservative," low income, evangelical and independent voters lean toward Santorum. Romney's vote is largely affluent and moderate. Take Ohio, where he dominated among everyone age 65 and older, people with at least a college degree and folks earning more than $100,000 per year. If you want to understand who is actually enthusiastic about Romney, imagine Barbara Bush throwing a fundraiser on a yacht.
Meanwhile, turnout in this year's primaries has been down by about 9%; only 5% of Republicans voted in Virginia. Primary-goers have been drawn largely from white-dominated rural areas. Take Florida. About 16% of Floridians are African-American, but only 1% of primary participants were black. It's a typically Democrat demographic, yes, but still a damning indictment of the GOP's failure to broaden its base.
Likewise, despite the GOP's loud support for Israel, just 1% of Florida voters were Jewish (the figure is roughly 4% statewide). A remarkable 36% of primary-goers were older than 65 in a state where they account for 17.6% of the population. Romney is drawing on the dwindling base of a party that looks less and less like the rest of America.
In contrast, President Barack Obama enjoys high ratings in the states that count. The November election is probably going to come down to Ohio; no Republican has been elected in the past century without winning there. And while Romney snatched Tuesday's state primary, Obama enjoys a hypothetical lead over him in a general election of 50% to 38%. That is helped by the fact that local unemployment is slightly lower than in the rest of the country and unionized households still account for 28% of the electorate.
Romney's problem, argues E.J. Dionne, is that he's directing his campaign at the Republican base and not at Ohio's wider, more diverse middle class.
The same is true nationwide. The Republican contest has been sidetracked by issues of little immediate importance to most voters: contraception, gay rights, abortion, etc. All the while that he is battling the egos of Santorum and Gingrich, Romney is not presenting a convincing alternative to Obama's leadership. The GOP primaries have become a private conversation to the exclusion of the rest of the country
Second, here's my own answer to the original headline of that piece, "Why Can't Romney Win Big?"
Rewind to 2004. George W. is not popular, his handling of the economy is not popular, his war policies are not popular and the numbers indicate that he is going to have a tough time convincing voters that he is worthy of a second term.
The Democrats, apparently unable to capitalize on W.'s weaknesses nominate John Kerry, a lackluster, uninspiring "not a superstar but pretty much the best of what we got to offer" candidate to run against him.
Given the choice between the devil we know and the devil we don't, George W. is, inevitably, given that second term, worthy or not.
Fast forward to 2012.
Re-read the previous scenario, replace George W. with Barack Obama, replace John Kerry with Mitt Romney and switch any mention of the word Democrats with the word Republicans.
I think you can admire the style without condoning the crime.
To wit, Michelle Bachmann and her bordering on genius method of dealing with opinions, no matter how fact based, that differ from her own.
Simply denying it.
Piers Morgan reads Bachmann's own words right back to her face, words that by any fair, reasonable definition qualify as being "judgemental" on her part, makes the observation that by any fair, reasonable definition she is, at least in this instance being "judgemental" and she responds with a brilliance not often seen in a world of politics that relies on subterfuge and/or obfuscation.
"No, I'm not."
Stunning in its simplicity, irrefutable in its presentation, impossible to counter.
Verbal checkmate.
And while CNN headlines the story with the inevitable, hackneyed "Piers in war of words with Bachmann" yada, yada, the real breaking news is being overlooked here.
This may, in fact, be the first recorded instance of the beginning of a totally new era in socio-political history.
Denial on a scale previously undreamed, let alone unseen.
Think of the possibilities.
"Governor Romney, you said in 2009 that parts of Massachusetts health care could be positively adapted into the national health plan."
"No, I didn't."
"Speaker Gingrich, you've been quoted as saying you believe no one in power can be trusted"
"No, I don't."
"Mr. Limbaugh, you were egregiously out of line and morally reprehensible when you called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute."
"No, I wasn't. And even if I was, no, I didn't."
This is an evolution of staggering potential.
Politics, as we know it, will literally change over night.
No longer will politicians have to waste countless hours in spin and/or damage control.
They'll just look us in the eyes, smile a frozen smile and say...
"...no, I didn't/I'm not..."
And assume that we'll give up and drop it.
Common sense, of course, suggests that we will see this bordering on absurdity for the insult to our intelligence that it is.
It might come as a surprise to any regular reader here, but my roots are Republican.
Born in the southern California of the 1950's, I was surrounded, from that first slap (and I always just assumed that those family members in attendance insisted that the doctor use his right hand), by relatives who would no more have even considered endorsing, let alone voting for, a Democrat than they would have even considered not making certain and sure that any out of state visitor wasn't treated to, at least, one complete, action packed day at Disneyland.
And if Walt Disney had ever run for President, good golly miss molly, talk about your historic Electoral College landslide.
Obviously, in that climate, it was inevitable that, along with my minimum daily requirements of vitamins, minerals and fiber, there would be a healthy dollop of creamy conservatism served right along side.
I was ten years old before the show biz glitz of the Kennedy show in 1960 alerted me to the fact that everyone was, in fact, not born Republican.
Here the thing about that, though.
I recall the elders being engaged in spirited discussion, even passionate philosophizing about the contrast between the two polar points of view.
There was never a moment's doubt about which side of the line the family would always choose to live and breathe.
There was no gray. It was black and white.
This, of course, being in the days before the advance of television technology gave us both programs in living color and states that came in red and blue.
Concrete commitment to the conservative cause notwithstanding, what I do not recall was vitriol.
Make no mistake, there was no mistaking the depth of the family dislike of any and all things Democrat.
But it seemed to be understood that it's one thing to be doggedly determined to offer up a healthy, nutritionally sound alternative cereal to the national breakfast table.
And quite another to spend vast amounts of time, energy and money to accomplish nothing more than peeing in the existing Cheerios.
Again make no mistake and assume no naivete', petty politics is as much an American tradition as getting in the ten items or less line with twenty items.
But, risking the inevitable tsking that results from rose colored looks back to good old days, one thing seems pretty obvious.
It's really no longer how you play the game.
And totally about whether you win or lose.
Red state, blue state, left wing, right wing, in support of or passionately opposed to...we all liked Ike.
Can't help but suspect that, these days, even Ike wouldn't find much to like.
Nor, particularly, activist, adventurist, ultra rightist, ultra leftist or hedonist.
Although, truth be told, I am a sentimentalist.
Or so I've shared with my therapist.
I do freely confess, though, to being a stupidist.
And that's a stupidist, not the stupidest.
For the latter, you have to go south, young man.
(By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor )
Declaring Joseph Ozment “rehabilitated,” Gov. Haley Barbour included the convicted killer among over 200 pardons he issued in his last days as governor of Mississippi.
Mr. Ozment was last seen leaving the Governor's Mansion, where he was a convict “trusty,” on Jan. 8 when he got into a car driven by his grandmother.
Ozment, whom Barbour described Friday as a “free man,” is now being sought by Mississippi authorities investigating the constitutionality of Barbour's mass pardons, which shocked many Mississippians, including victims and law enforcement. The list included over 40 murderers, rapists and others convicted of violent crimes.
The unusual manhunt is the latest twist in a peculiar tale of Southern patriarchy and redemption that has dogged Mr. Barbour since he left office earlier this month. The governor has defended his actions, saying the state pardon board had already freed most of the people, and that the clemency was mainly designed to give worthy ex-convicts the right to vote and hunt.
This particular piece goes on for a few paragraphs but I ended my reading here.
Hard to continue when dealing with the coffee coming through my nose from the laughter.
Said snort/spit take occurring, of course, as I read the last sentence.
The governor has defended his actions, saying the state pardon board had already freed most of the people, and that the clemency was mainly designed to give worthy ex-convicts the right to vote and hunt.
The temptation here is to castigate the entire sovereign state of Mississippi as the last remaining bastion of inbreeding in modern times.
That would be unfair and incorrect.
Keeping Up With The Kardashians has disproven the theory that inbreeding is confined to the Confederacy.
Here's the thing, though...ya'll...
You've got to laugh, or weep, at the luscious lunacy of a freely elected governor of a state in the United States of America who sees his role in the protection of human rights as seeing to it that those who have been convicted of felonies have returned to them their constitutional right to vote...
...and hunt.
Because, way down South in the land of cotton, there are no two more precious possessions than a ballot box and a gun rack.
It's that kind of mindset that turned me into a stupidist.
Again, a stupidist.
Not the stupidest.
For that, you have to be Haley Barbour.
Or anybody who ever flipped a lever next to his name.
Some years ago, Paul McCartney was asked some inane question, or another, about the state of world affairs.
Because, even then, media somehow operated under the still held belief that when it comes to cogent political perspective, the first, best place to get it is from movie and/or TV and/or music stars.
McCartney, full of the youthful exuberance that, well, youth doles out but, at the same time, showing an already mature, impishly veiled contempt for media who were operating under the still held belief that that when it comes to cogent political perspective, the first, best place to get it is from movie and/or TV and/or music stars, replied, give or take a paraphrase, thus:
"Personally, I think they should put all the world leaders in a stadium and let them duke it out. Whoever walks out, wins."
Given the pasty look resulting from the pampered lifestyle of your garden variety despicable despots, that was arguably both an impudent, and insightful, reply.
And, if you think about it for a second, not a half bad idea.
Fast forward forty years and it occurs to me that we might be wise to reconsider Sir Paul's simple, silly/savvy solution as the already mundane march to Washington has already reached new levels of mundane.
But, perhaps, with just a little timely tweak.
As demonstrated by the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania.
Couple of instant impressions here.
First, say what you will about his performance as the keeper of the castle.
But even the most righteous right winger would come off petty and petulant by denying that, when it comes to vocal versatility, the guy's got game.
And if you think it takes stones to cha-cha like Chaz in front of millions of people each week, imagine what it takes to be re-running for the highest elected office in the land and risk ragging, rebuffing, and Republican ridicule, by imitating the iconic voice of Al Green.
With Al Green in the audience.
All of which, of course, for the benefit of my friends and family on the other side of the aisle, has absolutely nothing to do with the man's qualifications, or lack, to be given another four years in the Oval.
As if the current criteria does anything to guarantee us a quality choice.
But, I digress.
Since the process, as is, is, at best, arguably nothing more than a talent and/or personality contest, why not concede it as such and make the most out of it?
Why put ourselves through ten months of lame lies and rhetorical ramblings when we can choose our next President and actually look forward to tuning in to the latest attempt to curry our favor at the same time?
Yes, kids, I'm talking...
"The Voice- D.C. Edition".
"The D.C. Factor".
"American Hail to the Idol".
Call it what you will, the opportunity is obvious and the potential is powerful.
Each week, they sing, they are judged and we vote.
Until, come summer time, the field is narrowed to two.
Then, each week they sing.
Until the final week when they sing and we vote.
And the winner is awarded a major label recording contract...and the title of Commander In Chief.
Simon and Paula and, uh, what's his/her name?
Yawn.
Randy and Steven and JLo?
Snooze.
Let's talk Blitzer and Coulter and O'Reilly.
Yeah.
And if turns out that Obama is a one trick pony (think Katherine McPhee singing Over The Rainbow), if Romney can't carry a tune even if it was subsidized by state mandated health care dollars, if Newt has to deal with the dilemma of which of the wives get the song dedication, so be it.
It's a small price to pay to be sincerely entertained, as opposed to anesthetized, by the year long yammering.
And, for the every now and then comic relief, we could throw in "cameos" by once and no longer viable candidates.
Tonight....
Rick Perry sings "Oops, I Did It Again"....
Michele Bachmann sings "Bette Davis Eyes"...
Herman Cain sings "(I'm A) Love Man"...
Sarah Palin sings " I Can See Russia From The House of The Rising Sun"...
Man, I think we're onto something here.
And for those pooh-poohing naysayers who might naysayingly pooh poo the idea as making a mockery of the majestic process of picking a President, I would, all due respect, rebuttingly reply...
Your majestic process is pretty much already little more than a song and dance show.
Today's poignant presentation from the "keeping things in perspective" folder.
It speaks volumes that, if asked, a great many people would prefer to keep this lady employed as opposed to keeping a great many of the fully "functional" people who have the same job.
There is a palpable sadness on display here.
And it has nothing to do with her physical condition.
It has totally to do with the fact that Gabrielle Giffords has to work extra hard to simply walk forward....
...while managing to take the high road that so few others even manage to find.
The Democrats haven't exactly been a font of inspiration lately, either.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch's right wing...
The Republicans, regardless of their "F Troop meets Benny Hill" adventures this primary season, have managed to make history.
For the first time ever, the first three presidential primaries have been won by three different candidates.
Channel surfing around last night just past South Carolina poll closing time, I witnessed the following quick spins, give or take, paraphrase here or there, on that accomplishment from the usual gang of suspects.
Fox News- "....clearly the Republican party is still fine tuning their message and determining which of the fine candidates will best take that message to the American people to insure victory in November..."
MSNBC- "...clearly the Republican party is in total disarray with no clear vision, no clear message and no clear road to victory in November..."
CNN- "...tune in tonight as Piers Morgan conducts a no holds barred interview with the reunited cast of "Growing Pains"...."
No matter what spin you subscribe to, there is a pretty non-partisan, no brainer conclusion to be drawn from the primary results to date.
There is no clear front runner for the 2012 Republican nomination for President Of The United States.
And, believe it or not, at this point some of the pundits and pontificators are even offering up cautious conjecture that the condition of the G.O.P. candidate collection might actually be ripe for the arrival/entry of yet another, as yet unannounced, as yet undetermined pair of eyes on the prize.
I'm reminded of two things at this juncture.
That garden variety scene in most buddy movies where chaos, disaster and/or danger are imminent and unavoidable and the buddies look at each other, each with an expression on their face that clearly reads "you first".
And Ray Bolger.
Admittedly, Mr. Jumbo, Dumbo, et al, ever the imposing pachyderm remains, for the moment, the iconic symbol of the Grand Old Party.
At the rate they're going, though, I'm thinking they might want to consider a hip/retro update of the whole image.
First, today's Scriptural perspective on the process politic.
Ecclesiastes 1:9.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Charleston, South Carolina (CNN) -- The four remaining GOP candidates played to their individual strengths on Thursday and tried to leave a lasting impression in a final, boisterous debate two days before South Carolina's pivotal primary.
In a campaign cycle where debates have had direct consequences on the ebb and flow of the race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned his contempt for the media into one of his strongest performances yet. When CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich's ex-wife that he had sought one, the Republican chastised him.
"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine," Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.
Gingrich's response elicited loud applause from the audience.
A common lament, in this day and time, is that the political process in America has deteriorated into a morass of malicious, malevolent mudslinging, long on low blow and short on substantive spark, said lament usually accompanied with a wistful wish for a a return to what we inevitably refer to as "the good old days".
Fact is, when it comes to the hallowed days of good old past, much like any supposed claim of legitimate talent in anyone named Kardashian, there simply ain't no such thing.
The process of politics has been malicious and malevolent since inception.
And while it's certainly Newt's prerogative to get his panties in a twist about this slap or that slander, implying that some new level of "despicable" has been achieved in the age old process is like suggesting that there is something dirtier than dirt.
Not to mention the aforementioned Ecclesiastes editorial.
As illustrated by a few "oldies but goodies" from campaigns past.
Obviously, the terms "campaign trail" and "high road" are not synonymous.
And, as another adventure in the four year cycle gets under way, there is, among the myriad questions to be asked and answered along the way, really only one question that we are able to answer with certainty from the outset.
There's something missing from this year's Republican presidential aspirant assemblage.
Besides that.
And besides that, too.
What's missing is anything resembling a cool, catchy, well crafted campaign slogan.
A catch phrase that looks equally at home stickered on a rich kid's school locker, a designer gym bag or the ass end of a Lexus SUV.
Toyota Camry?
Seriously, we're talking about Republicans right now.
And Republicans, right now, seem to be not only in search of a certified superstar but a slogan we can savor.
Check out this year's nominal nominees.
Mitt Romney - Believe In America
Ron Paul - Restore America Now
Rick Santorum - The Courage To Fight For America
Rick Perry - Get America Working Again
Sensing a theme here?
Don't know which agency, etc, is working for who, but it's pretty clear that whoever has the copyright on the word "America" is raking in some serious simoleans this election cycle.
Meanwhile, the just departed Michele Bachmann offered up this bromide during her season on the stump.
"Restoring Constitutional Conservative Values".
Erudite and sincere, to be sure.
But, just as sure, over the heads of the millions of members of the Republican base who think that NASCAR should be an Olympic event and "Pawn Stars" got robbed at the Emmys.
And last, but certainly not least, there's Mr. Gingrich Who Wants To Go To Washington.
"Newt 2012".
This implies either a genius of brevity.
Or a attitude of "whatever".
This year's scarcity of sharp and snappy slogan seems not only regrettable but, frankly, a little ironic given the five second sound byte attention span culture in which we live. Not to mention the tradition of fun/fanciful phraseology throughout political history.
Here's a gaggle of greatest hits from our respective partisan pasts.
1840- William Henry Harrison - "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too"
Good alliteration, always a plus. The actual reference is, of course, dated but a little Google will enlighten you as to how clever this was in its time.
1884- Grover Cleveland - "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar From The Gate Of Maine"
Obviously, Blaine was Cleveland's opponent. And, just as obviously, Cleveland's media folks had no problem with the concept of "going negative".
1884- James G. Blaine - "Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa? Gone to The White House, Ha, Ha, Ha"
Grover Cleveland as much as admitted that he had fathered an illegitimate child years before the presidential campaign. And Blaine's media folks as much as admitted that they had no problem with the concept of "going negative" either.
1924- Calvin Coolidge - "Keep Cool With Coolidge".
Calvin Coolidge, in his day, had a personality that would have made Al Gore seem like a fire and brimstone preacher. That said, you gotta hand it to his sloganeers for recognizing the obvious opportunity here and carpally diem-ing it.
1952- Dwight Eisenhower - "I Like Ike".
Like basic black, classically simple and understated, while being neighborly as all giddyup at the same time.
1964- Barry Goldwater - "In Your Heart, You Know He's Right".
Poignant, outreaching, right up to, but not past, the line of being preachy and even a little condescending while appealing to the common sense in all mankind. And a value added comedy touch when one bunch of Democratic wags got a hold of it and adjusted it slightly, answering back "Yeah....extreme right..."
1968- Richard Nixon - "Nixon's The One".
Once again, simple, catchy and memorable. Also, as it turned out unfortunately, sadly true.
Somewhere around this time, subsequent slogans began to lack snap, the phrases began to fade.
Every now and then, a little glimmer of past glory. But, for the most part, it seemed as if the wheels had come off the witty wagon.
And, in some cases, the slogans were just plain sloppy.
1984- Ronald Reagan - "It's Morning Again In America"
Well, okay. But what about the millions of voters around the country who would honestly fess up that they simply don't consider themselves morning people?
1984- Walter Mondale - "America Needs A Change"
There's certainly a strong case to be made about how shitty some things are in this country, but I'm not sure the image of America with a full diaper is what you want to use to convince people you're the guy to fix those things.
1992- Ross Perot - "Ross for Boss"
When you've got lots of money / you can afford to be funny.
2000- George W. Bush - "Real Plans For Real People"
I think we can all appreciate the intended sentiment here. But I think we can all also see where this could easily be construed as some kind of devious plot to create a race of artificial, but amazingly lifelike, loyalist cyborgs.
Admittedly, there are far more important things to consider when choosing a presidential candidate than the quality, or lack, of their respective campaign slogan.
But I think the ability to sum up, in a few, sharp, succinct words what one is all about is an ability that can't be too overrated in someone we are hoping will lead and inspire us.
Because if they can't come up with a simple catchphrase to excite us about their product and/or service , how are we to be expected to buy what they're selling?
When a gunman opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and others at a shopping center near Tucson a year ago today — killing six people and injuring Giffords and many others — some people were quick to blame the episode on the overheated political climate.
At the time of the attack, there was a high tide of political rhetoric across America and a low ebb of social civility. The New York Times reported that the shootings "raised questions about potential political motives" and that the Pima County sheriff was blaming the tragedies on "the toxic political environment."
According to the Times, national reaction was immediate. "Democrats denounced the fierce partisan atmosphere in Gifford's district and top Republicans quickly condemned the violence."
President Obama made a fervent appeal for "more civil and honest public discourse."
As the nation has watched Giffords' heroic struggle to recover, it has also continued to publicly debate the importance of manners in public debate. Now the country is in the middle of a high-intensity presidential election. Politicians are slinging sludge and slamming their opponents — even within their own party. The moratorium on verbal mayhem is a distant mist and campaigning has again become a running series of $#*! Candidates Say About Each Other.
So on the first anniversary of the Tucson massacre, it's only natural to ask the obvious question: Whatever happened to political civility?
Grappling With Civility
Revved-up political rhetoric is always with us, says Cassandra Dahnke, co-founder of the Institute for Civility in Government, a nonpartisan Houston-based group that stages civility workshops and leads student field trips to Washington. "I don't think it becomes any worse during an election year. There is simply more of it. It becomes more difficult to avoid. But the nature of heated rhetoric otherwise remains, I believe, much the same."
Dahnke says she is "grateful that the country continues to grapple with civility and its relative importance to life in the public square."
But spoor of incivility is easy to find on the campaign trail. The stampeding candidates often poke and gore one another with sharp-horned barbs. For example, Jon Huntsman has told voters that Ron Paul is "not electable." Ron Paul has called Newt Gingrich a "chicken hawk" — in last night's New Hampshire debate and before — who avoided military service but sends others to fight wars. Gingrich has said that all Mitt Romney wants to do is "hide over here and pretend it's not his fault that he is flooding the people of Iowa with falsehoods." Romney has quipped that Rick Perry's approach to Social Security is not a "Ponzi scheme," it's a "Perry scheme." Attacks by Democrats can be just as crass.
Rudeness often dominates Internet comment sections and radio talk shows and TV town halls, leading to uncivil wars of words.
In Dahnke's opinion, "a lack of civility drives people from the conversation, and cripples the collaborative processes needed for a healthy democracy to endure. Without civility, we may be speaking at one another, but we are not necessarily speaking with one another, and if we cannot speak with one another, we can scarcely accomplish much else."
A Brittle Citizenry?
Over the years, everyone from Karl Rove on the right to Norman Lear on the left has called for a more mannerly body politic.
"American political discourse seems to be on a path to paralysis," Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the University of Massachusetts-Boston said in a statement recently. He was speaking about his school's newly created Center for Civil Discourse. "Extremist rhetoric permeates every level of political debate — from Congress to traditional media to the Internet.
Crosby said his center's goal "is to explore the meaning of civility and its role in American democracy and to encourage its practice."
This being America, however, not everyone shares that sentiment.
Writing in the Libertarian magazine Reason, David Harsanyi once asked, "Have we transformed into so brittle a citizenry that we are unable to handle a raucous debate over the future of the country? If things were quiet, subdued and 'civil' in America today ... it only would be proof that democracy isn't working."
And the late Christopher Hitchens reportedly said that civility is overrated.
"Some find in civility merit," Dahnke says, "others find weakness and/or political correctness."
Being civil, she says, "does not preclude one from being passionate, forceful or tough. It does preclude one from being rude, callous or mean."
Her institute defines civility as "claiming and caring for one's identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else's in the process." Dahnke says, "We aren't expecting people to always agree, nor would we want them to be anything less than passionate about their positions. But a person should not have to resort to rudeness, hostility and/or falsehood to make a reasoned point."
But isn't rough-and tumble language the price we pay for free speech? "Yes," Dahnke says. "But as Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court is credited with saying, 'There is a big difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do.' "
Picture the process politic as a large swimming pool.
Picture civility as a bright, colorful beach ball.
Picture the American electorate as you or me playing that fun game we inevitably try once or twice every summer, pushing the beach ball down with one or both hands believing we have the ability to hold the ball down beneath the surface of the water indefinitely.
Picture greed, corporate and/or lobbyist influence, selfishness, self interest and avarice as dynamic forces directly countering the beach ball as it attempts to displace the water.
No matter our effort, intent, desire or belief, the ball, inevitably, pops back to the surface.
