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.
