"...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.

"...Off We Go....Into The Red State Yonder...."

We do love our mysteries.

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?

"...Leonardo DiCaprio For V.P., I'm Thinkin'..."

Here's a take on what it will take for Romney to seal the deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/politics/crowley-romney-illinois/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

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.

Convention, and/or iceberg, dead ahead.

"...Talk Is Cheap...AND It Comes In A Pretty Cool Variety Pack..."

Rick Santorum has the right idea.

He just doesn't speak the language.

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.

"I don't know, ya mook, whattya got?"

"...The Chances of Watching This With A P-P-P-Poker Face Are P-P-P-Pretty Much Nada...."

Meanwhile, from the folder marked campaign hijinks.



Two thoughts come to mind.

The artist who put this together has a staggering amount of free time.

The President can pretty much count on the Gaga demographic this time around.

We now return you to the slogging, mundane ritual that is election year 2012.

"...Dear Lord, What's Next?.....Tony The Tiger?......"

Old saying.

Thin line between love and hate.

Another old saying.

Thin line between comedy and politics.

To wit...

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".

Now, that's breaking news, kids.

Not to mention funny.

"...No, It's Really Not That Complicated...Yes, It Really Is That Simple..."

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.

Stupid still means what it always did.

Class dismissed.

"...It's Deja Vu' All Over Again..."

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.

And there it is.

Okay.

Who's up for 2016?

"...I Know You're Not, But What Am I?...."

Said it before.

I'll say it again.

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.

No, we won't.