"...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.

"...Admittedly, Eisenhower Gave Us Nixon...Still and All, Though....."

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.