This post tries to answer the musical question  –  “Is there a new Maverick in town?  

*   *   *   *

This post follows up the last one, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

The inspiration for both these blog-posts came when I found an old – November 1998 – copy of Rolling Stone magazine.  (At the bottom of a dumpster.)  The cover showed Bill Clinton – looking “befuddled” – in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  (She’s at left.)

But inside – starting on page 92 – I found an article “much more relevant to today’s political scene.”  It noted a candidate – 18 years ago – who showed a “malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings.  He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions…

But here’s the strange part:  It wasn’t Donald Trump!

So here goes:  Page 92 of the 11/12/98 Rolling Stone featured two headlines.  The larger one read, “The Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”  (That is, the stink from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.)

Page 97 included this tidbit, about that 1998 presidential candidate:  “The man sounds delusional, and probably he is.  He sounded the same twenty years ago…”  (Which seems to verify that history repeats in cycles.)  Also on page 97:

The demagogic style of politics is still present in the man…  A lot of [his] harsh rhetoric has the quality.  It may sound loopy at first…  But if you assume [his] eye is really on the White House, reckless declarations may make sense for advancing his agenda.

Page 97 also featured a side note about an assistant – on the campaign staff – who quit “as the [candidate] got more and more detached from reality.”

So just who was this guy?  

Who was this arguable precursor to Donald Trump?  (With his take no prisoners style of campaigning?)  You could see the answer in the smaller headline.  (Just above the lead “Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”)  Just above that lead headline, in slightly smaller type, read these words:  “The Real Scandal in Washington is Newt Gingrich.”

Which brings up the subject of “The Newt’s” powers of prophecy.  In 1998, Gingrich meditated on one thing quite often.  (Aside from his own presidential run.)  That one thing?

How will America look – in 2017 – “after two consecutive two-term Republican presidents (possibly including himself) have transformed America.”

As to how Newt’s powers of prophecy turned out, try an experiment.

Type “newt” into your search engine.  One result that I got quick was: “newt gingrich scandal.”  That “other teaser” led to links like Newt Gingrich Lacks Moral Character.  (According to “second ex-wife Marianne.”)

Another link:  Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained.  (According to both Mother Jones magazine and – in 2011 – the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” which said “Newt has a ton of baggage.”)  A third link-title read, Newt Gingrich Affair – Huffington Post.  That third link led to a host of other links on this apparently-robust topic.

Then there’s the fact that we didn’t have “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents.”

But we digress!

Getting back to the Rolling Stone:  Page 124 noted that Newt – in 1998 – “will  become anything and ruin anybody else in order to achieve his goals.”  That page also featured a quote from one victim – a Democrat – who noted ruefully:  “Gingrich developed a vocabulary of poison, which he injected into the political dialogue.”  (All of which sounds eerily familiar…)

Then came page 125, with this note:  “Sure it’s difficult to imagine the nation electing someone disliked by two-thirds of the electorate.  But it’s easy to imagine Gingrich scoring well in Republican primaries, where right-wingers can crowd out moderates.”  And this:

Newt Gingrich poses a greater threat to the Republican Party than to the republic itself.  The GOP will not become the governing party as long as leaders like Gingrich hold the reins.  And more and more reasonable Republicans are beginning to realize this.

One response to that “reasonable Republicans” comment could be:  Apparently not!  All of which arguably leads to this prophetic cartoon, by Charles Schulz back in 1961:

One response to that 1961 prophecy could be:  “There seem to be plenty of openings in the lunatic fringe, and more and more of those openings are being filled these days!”

But once again we digress.  The topic at hand is whether Donald Trump’s appearance – as the darling of a large segment of the conservative electorate – is something new under the sun?  Or is it instead just a case of deja vu all over again…

Interestingly enough, the 1998 article noted – on page 125 – that Newt Gingrich was the “Bill Clinton of the GOP.  He’s a manipulator – flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening to be a winner.”  (Which also sounds chillingly familiar.)

But on the page before – page 124 – there was some wisdom the “Grand Old Party” may want to pay more attention to.  The page noted that the party’s “intramural crosscurrents are fierce and difficult to manage.”  On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s ability to manage just such fierce crosscurrents did allow them to be the “governing power for decades – a willingness to deal and compromise among its contending blocs and interest groups.”

On that note see Sarah Palin vows to campaign against Paul Ryan.  As an aside, Ryan is the current Speaker of the House. The article noted Palin’s decision was “sparked by Ryan’s bombshell announcement … that he wasn’t yet ready to support Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee. Palin endorsed Trump back in January.”

On a related note see Devouring Their Own.  But again getting back to the subject at hand:  Is “The Donald” indeed something new under the sun, or just deja vu all over again?

Which leads us to one last quote:

One result of these tactics [by many conservatives, back in 1998] is the brittle, bitter climate of distrust in national politics today:  the loss of civility amid endless personal accusations, the stalemates that develop on issue after issue when both sides are unable to approach the grounds where reasonable compromise can occur.  Possibly this nasty atmosphere would have developed anyway…  But Newt is the guy who poured poison in the stream.

Then of course comes the real kicker.  Donald Trump is considering Gingrich as his vice-presidential candidate.  Or that Gingrich is actively seeking the post.  (Or both.)  See for example:  A Trump-Gingrich Ticket:  So Crazy It Just Might Make Sense?

So “what we’ve got here” is either something new under the sun, or deja vu all over again.  Or maybe – instead – it’s just another failure to communicate.

According to Rolling Stone, Newt Gingrich sounded the same in 1998 as he did – politically – in 1978.  And what Newt said – and how he said it – seem eerily similar to Donald Trump’s style of campaigning today.  So whatever “problem” there is with Donald Trump goes back at least 40 years.

It may have been for that very reason that there weren’t “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents,” 16 straight years with a Republican in the White House.

Maybe it was the scandals, or maybe it was the ton of baggage.

Or maybe it’s just easier to win a local Congressional race with a “vocabulary of poison” than it is to win the presidency.  And who knows?  Maybe Donald Trump is the new “Bill Clinton of the GOP,” a master manipulator “flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening.”

But is Donald Trump willing “to deal and compromise” enough to navigate the “contending blocs and interest groups” within the Republican Party?  (If not the country itself?)

History seems to show that Newt Gingrich was not able to do all that.  Which makes Trump’s flirting with the idea of Newt as his VP candidate all the more intriguing.

And all of which leads to another set musical questions:  Is Donald Trump simply another case of deja vu all over again?  Or is he “crazy?”  Or is he instead crazy like a fox?

*   *   *   *

The post-title alludes to the phrase “taken from a famous (attributed) quotation from Yogi Berra:  ‘It’s like déjà vu all over again.'”  See Deja Vu All Over Again – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Déjà vu is the “phenomenon of having the strong sensation that an event or experience currently being experienced has already been experienced in the past.”  So Yogi Berra’s saying “its like deja vu all over again” would be similar to saying something was “redundant redundant.”

The upper image was borrowed from the last post, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”  In turn the image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia.

As for the phrase “answers the musical question” see e.g. Carol Brady – Quotes – imdb.com:  “Carol Brady:  ‘Yeah, the show that asks the musical question: Can eight average people make it in the big time?'”  See also “Bibliographia” – Verbatim, Vol. 29, Issue 1, Spring 2004 (“A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century”), which included this:

In the postwar years, young people became increasingly anti-authoritarian in their behavior. Blame it on Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones.  One way to keep the old folks at bay was to cut them out of your communications…  “Kids,” a song from the 1960 musical Bye, Bye Birdie, asks the musical question, “Who can understand anything they say?”

You could also Google the term “‘answers the musical question’ phrase.”

The article at issue – starting on page 92 of the November 12, 1998 Rolling Stone – started:

The obsession with Bill Clinton’s scandal covers up a stink at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue – that other Washington scandal known simply as Newt.  If Clinton were forced from office, the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich – a man loathed or distrusted not only by the public but by his own Republican colleagues – would be a heartbeat from the presidency.  

The next sentence:  “‘President Gingrich.’  Not likely to happen, but truly frightening to contemplate.” 

The Donald Trump image was featured in On Reagan, Kennedy – and “Dick the Butcher.”  In turn the image is courtesy of businessinsider.com/donald-trump-has-been-fired.

Re: Mother Jones magazine and the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” agreeing that Newt Gingrich has baggage.  See also Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Re: Lunatic fringe.  Wikipedia noted that the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.'”  See also Lunatic Fringe, the “song by the Canadian rock band Red Rider from their 1981 album.”

The “lunatic fringe” cartoon is courtesy of Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com.

The Sarah Palin image is courtesy of “aol.com/article/2016/05/08/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryans-failure-to-endorse-donald-trump-is-unwise/21373081.”

Re: “devouring their own.”  The link in the text is to Saturn Devouring His Son – Wikipedia.  That article told of the Greek god who, “fearing that he would be overthrown by one of his children, ate each one upon their birth.”  For other examples see Republicans Begin Devouring Their Own – LA Progressive, and Republicans devouring their own – Democratic Underground.  But see also COMMENTARY: Democrats are devouring their own, a website headquartered at 1400 East Nolana, McAllen, TX.

The “What we’ve got here” image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article noting the phrase “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate,” featured in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke.

The lower image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, “Crazy like a Fox (1926 film), a 1926 film starring Charley Chase.”  The caption reads: “Charley Chase as Wilson, the groom:”

Crazy like a Fox is a 1926 American short film starring Charley Chase.  The two-reel silent comedy stars Chase as a young man who feigns insanity in order to get out of an arranged marriage, only to find out that his sweetheart is the girl he has been arranged to marry…  The film features Oliver Hardy in a small role filmed shortly before his teaming with Stan Laurel.

Which may bring up the fact – again – that sometimes history repeats in cycles.  

The original Gerrymander – a political ploy from 1812 – courtesy of Elbridge Gerry …

*   *   *   *

Today at lunch I finished the rest of the February 8, 2016 issue of Time magazine.  (The first issue – from 1923 – is shown at right.)  I get the magazines hand–me–down from my brother and sister-in-law, and sometimes it takes awhile to read them through.  

Specifically, today I read The Apprentice Voter, starting on page 32.

(See for example How Trump and Sanders Voters Are Upending U.S Politics, which noted that – online – “This TIME Magazine article is only available to subscribers.”  See also RE: TIME “Apprentice Voters” … Medium, and Meet the First-Time Voters Who Are Changing the Election.  For an “on the other hand” – or update – see New model finds 1 candidate surging in general election, dated 4/13/16:  “Hillary Clinton would secure massive victories in the general election against both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.”  The article also noted that Republican candidate John Kasich could “block [such] a victory.”)

Naturally the article focused on the upcoming 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For example, the two lead photos featured a 22-year-old Bernie Sanders supporter, and a 31-year-old Donald Trump supporter.  The Sanders supporter said that everyone “is tired of politics as usual,” and “frustrated with income inequality.”  He added, “We were told in kindergarten that we could do anything.  I don’t think that’s true.”

The Trump supporter said this:  “We’re becoming weakened in the face of the world.  We’re not the global superpower that we used to be.”  And Time added this summary:

From opposite ends of the spectrum, both [ – Sanders and Trump – ] have promised to remake the nation with a populist revolution.  You could call their supporters the Apprentice Voters:  the fed-up, the tuned-out, the frustrated flock who want their elected leaders to feel their pain, reflect their fury and actually do something about it.

Which is all well and good.  However, it does bring up a pet theory of mine.

My theory is that real political change will only come about when we re-make the U.S. House of Representatives.  (BTW, costiveness is defined alternately as “causing constipation,” “suffering from constipation,” being “slow” and/or “sluggish,” or “stingy.”)  

Which pretty much describes the political situation today.  

My original thesis was that the problem could well be due to gerrymandering.  (That is, the “practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan-advantaged districts.”)

But one website indicated that may not be the case.  See As Swing Districts Dwindle, Can a Divided House Stand?  (I used the search-term:  “congressional district entrenched.”)

That article said most Congressional representatives “now come from hyper-partisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party.”

The article said the issue is a one of shrinking swing districts, where an incumbent stands a chance of losing an election.  (As opposed to landslide districts, where the incumbent is virtually assured of re-election.)  In a nutshell, “the number of swing districts has been on a steady decline since at least 1992, and the number of landslide districts on a steady rise.”

On the other hand, it seems there has a bit of gerrymandering:  For example, the Congressional redistricting “that took place after the 2010 elections.”

Republicans were in charge of the redistricting process in many states, and they made efforts to shore up their incumbents, while packing Democrats into a few overwhelmingly Democratic districts.  In the few large states where Democrats were in charge of the redistricting process, like Illinois, they largely adopted a parallel approach.

Which brings up the issue of Congressional redistricting itself.

Wikipedia noted that seven of our 50 states don’t have that issue at all. (Their population is so small they only have one representative for the whole state.  Like Wyoming, with the city of Casper shown at right.)  

Seven other states have their congressional districts decided by an “independent or bipartisan redistricting commission.”  (“To reduce the role that legislative politics might play.”)   But that still leaves plenty of room for political ploys, such as – for example – gerrymandering:

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party.  Consequently, many states including Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.

Then there was another ploy – in 2003 – by Texas Republicans.  They “increased their representation in the U.S. House through a controversial mid-decade redistricting.”  (For another view see Mid-Decade Redistricting, Abuse of Power, by Texas Democratic Congessman Gene Green.)

Then too, in some other states – like California, New Jersey and New York – legislators have protected incumbents of both parties.  (Which reduces the number of competitive districts.)

On the “other other hand,” the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.

See for example Why Monday’s Supreme Court decision on redistricting is an important victory over conservatives.  Dated April 6, 2016, that Raw Story lead paragraph went like this:

As the composition of the Supreme Court remains in flux following the death of one of its most outspoken justices and as the executive and legislative branches continue to battle over the timing of his replacement, the eight-member Court spoke in one voice today to affirm a bedrock democratic principle.

That bedrock principle was representational Equality:  “the longstanding principle of one-person one-vote.”  (Formerly known as “one man, one vote.”)  See also Supreme Court ruling on Texas redistricting cheers Democrats.  (About liberal groups applauding the ruling that bolsters the power of “Texas’ booming Latino population,” in areas long dominated by conservatives.)

Which brings up a caveat.  Don’t think – from the last sentence – that I’m one of those flaming liberals.  (But as Seinfeld might say, “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That!”)  Instead – and as noted in Blue Dogs and the “Via Media” – I try hard to follow the “Middle Way:”

Via media is a Latin phrase meaning “the middle road…”   Aristotle [urged] his students to follow the middle road between extremes [and] the via media was the dominant philosophical precept by which Ancient Roman civilisation and society was organised…  The idea of a middle way [also] goes back to early in the Protestant Reformation…

See Via media – Wikipedia.  However, we digress!

We were talking about gerrymandering and other symptoms of the political costiveness so prevalent today.  And possibly about whether there’s any hope for the future.

Personally, I think there is.  And that you can sum it one word.

Remember that scene in 1967’s The Graduate?

Where Mr. McGuire takes Dustin Hoffman (Benjamin Braddock) aside and says – about his future – “I want to say one word to you.  Just one word.”  (See The Graduate “One Word: Plastics” – YouRepeat.)

Well, here’s my one word about hope for our political future:

Millennials!

See for example The “Millennials” Are Coming – CBS News, about the impact on corporate America by and from “the demographic cohort following Generation X.”

But since we’re talking politics, here’s what Wikipedia had to say about Millennials:

According to a 2013 article in The Economist, surveys of political attitudes among Millennials in the United Kingdom suggest increasingly liberal attitudes with regard to social and cultural issues…  The Economist parallels this with Millennials in the United States, whose attitudes are more supportive of social liberal policies and same-sex marriage…  A 2014 poll for the libertarian Reason magazine suggested that US Millennials were social liberals and fiscal centrists more often than their global peers.

So to sum this all up:  On the political front there seems to be good news for some and bad news for others.  Or to sum it up paraphrasing something Bob Dylan said back in 1964:

“The times they WILL be changin.'”

The original album cover, released on January 13, 1964…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Gerrymandering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption:

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists.  The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts, as a dragon-like “monster.”  Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry’s last name.

Re: representatives.  See also the general article, House[s] of Representatives.

Re: Wyoming.  See also Wyoming’s at-large congressional district – Wikipedia.

Re:  “On the other other hand.”  The link-citation – Give me a one-handed economist! – referenced the practice of economists (for example) to keep saying, “On the other hand…  On the other hand…”  The first time I heard that joke it was about lawyers who kept saying pretty much the same thing, when asked a question by a client.  (Who was no doubt looking for a straight answer.)

Re: “the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.”  But see Redistricting – Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Pennsylvania gerrymander effectively cemented the right of elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for disenfranchised constituents to challenge gerrymandered lines.

That article apparently hasn’t been updated since Evenwel v. Abbott. (4/6/16.)  See also How Supreme Court stood up for democracy for minorities, about the Evenwel case.

Re: “One word.  Plastics.”  See also The Graduate – Wikiquote.  The “one word” quote is in the second set of dialogue, right after the exchange between Benjamin and Mr. Braddock, his father.

Re: “Millenial” political views.  Wikipedia added that they were “less supportive of abortion than Gen X were in the early 1990s,” and that The Economist predicted that “millennials would become more conservative on fiscal issues once they started paying taxes.”

The “Graduate” image is courtesy of Amazon.com: The Graduate (video and DVD).

The lower image is courtesy of The Times They Are a-Changin (album).

Two political rivals – back in the old days when such people could “sup with their enemies…”

*   *   *   *

Back on June 12, 2015, I posted “Great politicians sell hope.”

The title of that post was a quote from the 2007 Chris Matthews book, Life’s a Campaign.  In the post I noted my first reaction. (To the idea of politicians “selling hope.”)  That first reaction was – and I quote – “What rock have you  been living under?“  Then I noted this, from page “xv:”

Political traits are in essence the ability to deal with people.   I’m talking about basic likability, the readiness to listen, to project optimism, to ask for help, to display good cheer in the face of opposition.  To learn the traits of the best [political] practitioners is to acquire a treasure chest of ways to persuade and influence people. 

In other words, Matthews suggested that – far from being inherently objectionable – today’s politicians are people that we “civilians” could actually learn something from.

I then noted that Matthews was – after all – talking about the best practitioners.  (The best “political” practitioners that is.)  Then I added this:  “Maybe the problem today is that too many politicians are trying only to be ‘basically likeable’ to their core base.*”

Which is I suppose another way of saying that not too many people these days see the current crop of politicians as displaying “basic likability.”

Or for that matter “the readiness to listen,” the ability to project optimism, or display “good cheer in the face of opposition.”  (As to asking for help from your political enemies, “Fuhgeddaboudit!!“)

Matthews then added another zinger:  That our current state of political gridlock may well be more of a “situation normal,” and not an aberration.

Then he said something that really surprised me.  Matthews said that most politicians today are both smart and they know exactly what they’re doing.

As an example – and set the tone for the book – he started his Introduction with this Dale Carnegie quote:  “My popularity, my happiness and sense of worth depend to no small extent upon my skill in dealing with people.”  (As applying to politicians.)  Then came the kicker:

The premise of this book is straightforward:  To get ahead in life you can learn a lot from those who get along for a living[.  Again, politicians.  That is:  T]he people who make the biggest impression on me and who’ve actually taught me the tricks of getting ahead in life are the politicians.  I know that goes against the grain…  (Emphasis added.)

(Page xiii, emphasis in original.  But see also Counterintuitive – Wikipedia.)  The point of all this being that Matthews’ thoughts gave me just the inkling of a shocking idea.

That “inkling” was that maybe – just maybe – many of our seemingly-dysfunctional politicians today actually do know what they’re doing.  But Matthews had even more to say:

You can say what you want about these masters of power.  They get people to vote for them, give money to their campaigns, trust them with their country.  They possess this wondrous ability, I’ve discovered, to get other people to do just what they want them to do…  The best of these politicians have a sure grip on human nature.  They leave it to the amateurs to believe how people are supposed to behave; they know the secrets of how people actually do.

Here’s another counterintuitive point:  That politicians are good listeners.  As Matthews put it, “They know the deep human need to be paid attention to.”  (On Ronald Reagan’s ability to listen, see The Economist.)  And the best politicians – like Reagan – “can project a sense of hope.”

Of course you could respond that – by their very nature – politicians are devious and Machiavellian. (Like the guy at left.)  And shameless about asking for things.  But – Matthews added – the best politicians are also “upbeat.”  The best politicians – so rare these days – “know the magic of optimism.”

Finally, Matthews added that equally-shocking idea – the one I noted above – that maybe we – we “civilians” – can actually learn from today’s politicians:

I realize that the notion of learning anything of value from politicians cuts against the current mood.  But what these people can teach us about human nature is priceless…  The ability to get along with people … is an art.  Getting people to do what you want them to, I have further learned, is a fine art.

(Page xiv-xv, emphasis in original.)  That In turn led to another shocking thought on my part.

I thought that maybe – just maybe – we citizens despise “all those negative politicians” precisely because they are such an accurate mirror of our own dark side.

That in turn reminded me of a popular quote about lawyers, another despised group:

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers…“

That’s from Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78, by William Shakespeare.  See Shakespeare Quotes – eNotes.com.  It’s also one of the most misinterpreted quotes of all time, but there’s no doubt the saying is popular.  See Let’s Not … (Above the Law):

Dick the Butcher was a minor character in the middle work of a trilogy of plays the Bard wrote about Henry VI …  and if it weren’t for 10 little words, Dick the Butcher would be largely forgotten.  But those 10 words live on and on, in t-shirts and bumper stickers and coffee mugs and anything else you can slap a quote on.

So here’s my point:  In today’s America we have two despised groups, lawyers and politicians.

And according to people who love to quote Dick the Butcher, the best thing to do would be to kill ‘em all off!   But that probably wouldn’t solve the problem.

The problem with lawyers is – after all – that they’re only doing what their clients want them to do.  (How many clients would tell their lawyer: “Don’t use that dishonorable legal trick.  I’d much rather keep my honor, even if it means spending the rest of my life in prison – and making sure I don’t drop the soap in the shower!”)  Which seems pretty much true of politicians as well.

So the popular view of both lawyers and politicians seems to go like this:  “It’s not my lawyer – or local political representative – who’s bad.  It’s all those other lawyers, politicians and political representatives who are corrupting the system!”

(And a BTW:  That last was either irony or sarcasm.  Or possibly both…)

Which brings up the fact that – as a former lawyer myself – I came up with what I thought was a much better idea.  That idea was that – when it comes to lawyers – maybe the rule should be this:  “The first thing we do is kill all the clients!”

But of course, that wouldn’t solve anything either.  We’re not going to kill all the lawyers, or the clients who pay them to be nasty on their behalf.  (As long as they keep the client happy, as in keeping him from losing his “shirt,” or his “virtue,” as in prison…)  And we’re also not going to kill off all the politicians, or the people who vote for them to be “nasty on their behalf.”

Which brings up again the likely reason so many people don’t like either lawyers or politicians today:  They accurately reflect our own dark side.  (Think “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: I Am My Mother After All.”)  But – apparently – it wasn’t always that way.

There was a time – in the not-too-distant past – that politicians could actually “sup with their enemies.”

Take for example, Ronald Reagan.  His political arch-enemies included Tip O’Neill and Ted Kennedy.  Yet Reagan could – and did – sup with either or both men.  For one example, even though the two men were politic arch-enemies, Ted Kennedy admired Reagan.

Specifically, Ted Kennedy he admired the fact that Ronald Reagan “knew how to manipulate symbols for his causes yet could sup with his enemies:”

He’s absolutely professional.  When the sun goes down, the battles of the day are really gone.  He gave the Robert Kennedy Medal, which President Carter refused to do…   He’s very sure of himself, and I think that people sense that he’s comfortable with himself…   He had a philosophy and he’s fought for it.  There’s a consistency and continuity at a time when many others are flopping back and forth.  And that’s an important and instructive lesson for politicians, that people admire that.

See “Great politicians sell hope.”  So one theme of this post is that we “civilians” can – according to Chris Matthews – learn a lot from today’s professional politicians.

But another theme could well be that today’s politicians could learn a lot from the best politicians of the past.  And one of the most revered conservative politicians of the past was Ronald Reagan.  See for example Ronald Reagan: Conservative Statesman.  (But see also If Ronald Reagan ran today, where would he fall on the conservative spectrum?)

So in closing, we could easily say that we could use a lot more of Reagan’s professionalism from today’s politicians – on both sides of the aisle.  (Referring to “the skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well.”)

Now that’s what I would call True Conservativism…

*   *   *   *

Just imagine Paul Ryan putting his arm around President Obama…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/08/senator_ted_kennedy.  The caption:  “Senator Edward Kennedy talks with President Ronald Reagan, left, on June 24, 1985, as they look over an American Eagle that graced President John F. Kennedy’s desk during a fund raising event for the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library at McLean, Virginia.  (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi).”  

Re: “LIfe’s a Campaign.”  For a link to the book version, see Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success.

Re: “Core base.”  I was going to write “wacko base,” but thought better of it…

Re: “Fuhgeddaboudit!!”  That site noted, “‘Fuhgeddaboudit’ seems to have become a pop cultural meme around the time of the 1997 film Donnie Brasco.”  The image to the left of the paragraph featuring the quote is courtesy of Donnie Brasco (1997) – IMDb.

Re: Today’s gridlock.  See for example Gridlock in Congress? It’s probably even worse than you think (Washington Post), Political gridlock: Unprecedentedly dysfunctional, (The Economist), and Political Gridlock – Huffington Post.  

Re: “Situation normal.”  See Military slang – Wikipedia.

The Donald Trump image is courtesy of businessinsider.com/donald-trump-has-been-fired.

Re: Ronald Reagan’s ability to listen.  The complete citation is US presidential endorsements | The Economist.  (Which included the illustration at right.)  Under 1980: Ronald Reagan:  “Many, though by no means all, of [Reagan’s] current advisers are indeed sound, and the evidence from his time governing California and from what the more impressive of them say is that his greatest quality is to be a good listener – though not to the legislature, which he treated with disdain.”

Re: “Most misinterpreted quotes of all time.”  See A Line Misinterpreted.  

The Shakespeare image is courtesy of PICTURES of WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.

The “mirror mirror” image is courtesy of studio773pillows.easternaccents.com/pv-32486-Mirror-Mirror-on-the-wall.

Re:  Ted Kennedy on Ronald Reagan.  See Battle for Justice: How the [Robert] Bork Nomination Shook America, by Ethan Bronner, Anchor Book edition (1989), at page 104. 

Re: Ronald Reagan as a conservative statesmen.  According to If Ronald Reagan ran today, where would he fall on the conservative spectrum:  “Conservative Republicans today don’t have one Reagan-type to coalesce around…  ‘There was only one Ronald Reagan and the eternal quest to try and clone him retrospectively is a failed mission.'”  For another view, see also 10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan.

The lower image is courtesy of parade.com/170490/1006-ronald-reagan-tip-oneill, from a post titled “Making Political Frenemies,” the gist of which is as follows:

The conservative president and the liberal House speaker found themselves constantly at odds during the six years they helmed their respective institutions, yet they managed to pass landmark legislation through divided government.

See also politico.com/story/2013/10/when-politics-worked-chris-matthews-colorful-memoir.  For other views of the relationship between Reagan and O’Neill, see Pat Buchanan: ‘There’s a Lot of Myth About Tip O’Neill and Reagan, and Sorry Chris – Tip and the Gipper didn’t like each other.  Which of course seems to be precisely the point:  That the two political enemies could work together – as “professional” politicians – even if they didn’t like each other…

*   *   *   *

Other thoughts from Life’s a Campaign:  1)  That making new friends, dealing with opponents, and getting out their message “comes with the territory” of being a politician:  “It’s called campaigning.” And  2)  That “when it comes to pushing their own careers, I can assure you, the best politicians know exactly what they’re doing.” 

The “Team of Five:” A president, president-elect, and three former presidents, on January 7, 2009…

*   *   *   *

February 28, 2016 – Here’s a book review I’ve been meaning to do since December, 2014.

Back in December 2014, down in my native Florida, I was at my step-mother’s funeral. (She’d married my father in January 1986. It was the Second Time Around for both her and my father, widow and widower.) After the funeral they had a nice reception – in the parish hall – and that’s where I found a big table of second-hand books for sale.

Looking through them, I found one that looked like an interesting read, The Presidents Club:  Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity. And as noted (“meaning to do since December, 2014”), I’ve been meaning to do this particular book review ever since I started this blog, back in March 2015. And since it’s now only a day of so away from March 2016, I’d say it’s about time I actually did that review. (A thought I also noted in the June 2015 post,  “Great politicians sell hope.”)

The “Great politicians” post reviewed another book, or more precisely a book-on-CD. That audiobook was Chris Matthew’s Life’s a Campaign. (It was sub-titled, “What Politics Has Taught Me about Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success.”) That experience led me to one big lesson for navigating today’s busy world. The lesson: It’s a whole lot easier to listen to a book – on CD, as while driving around town – than to actually read it.

But the really strange thing about both books is that they gave me a sense of hope:

The Presidents Club gave me a sense that – generally speaking – the men who occupied the White House have been – overall – decent, honorable and capable.  Then too, Life’s a Campaign gave me a sense that maybe the same applies to politicians in general.  (Gasp!)

(See Great politicians.)  In other words, both books gave me the budding idea that maybe it’s not the politicians at fault in these days of partisan gridlock.  Maybe – just maybe – it’s some of the people these politicians are trying to represent.  (To hire them, as it were.)

It reminds of that great Shakespeare quote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

That’s from Shakespeare‘s Henry VI, Part 2.  (Illustrated at right.)  But aside from the fact it was spoken by “Dick the Butcher” – and that Shakespeare meant to honor good lawyers – the quote focuses on the wrong villain.

As a former lawyer myself, my reaction goes something like this:  “No, no.  The first thing we do is kill all the clients. They’re the ones causing the trouble!”

The thing is, lawyers only represent people, their clients.  So the chances are, if a lawyer does something sleazy, he probably did it with either the client’s permission, or the client’s direct command.  The result is that people hate “all lawyers” – lawyers in general – for doing such things.  But that’s only when somebody else’s lawyer is doing the sleaze-work.

And that’s probably just as true of politicians.  Most Americans today hate politicians in general, but not if it’s their politician, their Senator or Representative.  But maybe the unpleasant fact is that it’s way too many of “We the People” who’ve turned nasty and negative.

And that maybe today’s politicians are just reflections of such generalized nastiness in today’s politics.  But we’re digressing… We were discussing how “great politicians sell hope.”  And how rare that seems these days.  But that generally speaking, the men in the White House have been – overall – decent, honorable and capable.

But you don’t have to take my word that Presidents Club is a good read.  There’s this from Book review: “The Presidents Club” (Washington Post):

A cynic might dismiss the 2005 buddy-movie disaster-relief efforts of [Bill] Clinton and the elder [George H. W.] Bush after a devastating Indian Ocean tsunami as cost-free do-goodism. But it’s hard not to put credence in the pull of the Presidents Club when you read that in a Bush family photo taken last year, the two Georges — and their extended kin — were joined incongruously by none other than the Democrat who served eight years between them.

See also Barbara Bush gushes about Bill Clinton, and “He’s my brother from another mother:” George W Bush.  (From which the bottom image was “courteously” borrowed.)

That brings up a big problem with The Presidents Club. It’s just too chock full of fascinating tidbits to be covered in one review. Things like Bill Clinton getting lessons in saluting from former president Ronald Reagan. Back near the end of November, 1992, just after Clinton’s election, he was in Los Angeles. His staff arranged a visit to Reagan’s post-presidential office:

Clinton, Reagan insisted, needed to learn how to salute…  As commander-in-chief, Reagan suggested, Clinton would need a good, crisp, up-and-down slash of the hand to get the job done right…  It helped that Reagan knew how to salute, both as a former Army cavalry officer and a former actor who played one in the movies.

Clinton on the other hand had never served in uniform.  The trick – Reagan said – was “pacing.” Real soldiers brought their saluting hand up slowly, “as if dripping with honey.”  But they brought the hand down “briskly, as if it were covered with something less pleasant:”

And so the eighty-one-year-old Reagan proceeded to give the forty-six-year-old Clinton a private tutorial.  The two men stood there in Reagan’s L.A. office, thirty-four floors above Beverly Hills, perfecting their salutes.

(414-15)  But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.  Which means that I’ll be doing lots more posts on Presidents Club in the future, as circumstances warrant. But in closing, let’s take a look back at Ronald Reagan. (And the “professionalism” that would likely doom his chances of winning a Republican nomination today.)

Ethan Bronner noted that even though they were political adversaries, Ted Kennedy admired the fact that Reagan, an ardent conservative, “could sup with his enemies.”  Kennedy added:

He’s absolutely professional.  When the sun goes down, the battles of the day are really gone.  He gave the Robert Kennedy Medal, which President Carter refused to do…   He’s very sure of himself, and I think that people sense that he’s comfortable with himself…   He had a philosophy and he’s fought for it.  There’s a consistency and continuity at a time when many others are flopping back and forth.  And that’s an important and instructive lesson for politicians, that people admire that.

(104)  The part about “supping with your enemies” is something today’s politicians might keep in mind.  We could use a bit more professionalism in today’s politics…

*   *   *   *

Who’ll be the newest member of The Presidents Club on 1/20/17?

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Book review: “The Presidents Club” (Washington Post), with the full caption:  “From left, George H.W. Bush, President-elect Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office on Jan. 7, 2009. (NIKKI KAHN/THE WASHINGTON POST).”  

See also Amazon.com: The Presidents Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity. And a note: The “Team of Five” part of the caption is an anachronism, a chronological misplacing. “Team of Five” is the name of a book published in 2020, four years after the original post. That’s because I went back in January 2022 and edited the original post, in part because two of the images I’d put in were now empty squares. And the full title and link to the book is Amazon.com: Team of Five: The Presidents Club in the Age of Trump.

Re: Chris Matthews.  See also Chris Matthews Discusses ‘Life’s a Campaign’ : NPR, and Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Life’s a campaign: What politics has taught me about friendship, rivalry, reputation and success.

Re: “Kill all the lawyers.”  See ‘Kill the Lawyers,’ A Line Misinterpreted – NYTimes.com:

Shakespeare’s exact line ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” was stated by Dick the Butcher in ”Henry VI,” Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society.

For another take on lawyers in general, see also Lawyers – Wikiquote.  (Another strange thing:  Just type in “kill all” in your search engine, and it automatically fills in “the lawyers.”)

For an image to go with the “Henry VI, Part 2” paragraph, see the “Jack Cade – rebel leader” link in that article. The caption: “Lord Saye and Sele brought before Jack Cade 4th July 1450, painting by Charles Lucy.”  The article noted that despite Cade’s “frequent promises that his followers would maintain a proper and orderly demeanour,” the rebellion disintegrated into “looting and drunken behaviour.  Gradually Cade’s inability to control his followers alienated the initially sympathetic citizens of London, who eventually turned against the rebels.”  See also James Fiennes, 1st Baron Saye and Sele, referring to one person, the baron who was “beheaded by a mob of the rebels in London under Jack Cade at the Standard in Cheapside on 4 July 1450.”     

The pages “414-15” reference is from the 2013 “Simon & Schuster” paperback version of The Presidents Club.   See also The Presidents Club, a review by Goodreads:

The Presidents Club, established at Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration by Harry Truman and Herbert Hoover, is a complicated place…  Among their secrets:  How Jack Kennedy tried to blame Ike for the Bay of Pigs.  How Ike quietly helped Reagan win his first race in 1966.  How Richard Nixon conspired with Lyndon Johnson to get elected and then betrayed him.  [And how] Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter turned a deep enmity into an alliance….

Re:  Ted Kennedy on Ronald Reagan.  See Battle for Justice: How the [Robert] Bork Nomination Shook America, by Bronner, Anchor Book edition (1989), at page 104.  The complete quote is that Reagan knew “how to manipulate symbols for his causes yet could sup with his enemies.”  That page added a telling example of Kennedy “rolling with the political punches.” 

The Bork nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was “on its knees” but he decided to fight on anyway.  He was cheered on by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who said, “We know what the cheaters think about this.  Let’s see what the A students think.”  (Referring to Ted Kennedy’s “famed cheating episode on a college examination” and reports that Joseph Biden “once plagiarized in law school.”):

When Biden saw Gramm, he was offended.  He said, “That was a terrible thing to say.  I’m no cheater.”  When Kennedy saw Gramm, he said, “That was a low blow, Phil.  But nice shot.”

The lower image is courtesy of “He’s my brother from another mother:” George W Bush.  See also nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/12/obama-is-not-george-w-bush. , which noted – among other things – that “W” had a “friendly” Congress for six of his eight years in office, while Obama has never had such cooperation.  Thus this conclusion:  

By the end of 2005, George W. Bush had seen the promise of his presidency collapse from justifiably lofty heights.  At the end of 2013, Obama stands at just about the same place he began his term.

Moses as the original supreme court, on advice and counsel of  his father-in-law Jethro…

*   *   *   *

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the news, again…

Last Saturday night I was channel surfing at home.  (Waiting for a ride to The Buddy Holly Story at the Legacy Theatre, Tyrone GA, shown at right.)   One channel had this news flash: “Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court justice, dies at 79…”

I was shocked, to say the least.

Later – at the theater – I mentioned Scalia’s death to a young(er) lady-friend.   (Whose political views are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.)  She said something to the effect that now “that [expletive deleted] Obama” would be able to name a new Supreme Court justice who would – shall we say – “tilt the balance of power.”

I didn’t expect her vehement response.  (Heck, the poor guy wasn’t even buried yet.)  So – diplomatically – I smiled and changed the subject.  However, after further review I thought her presumed outcome unlikely.  (With Republicans controlling the Senate and all.)

With that in mind – and after more time to review – allow me to prognosticate.

With the presidential election less than nine months away, there’s a pretty good chance Senate Republicans will block any Obama nomination.  Which means the next president will have to pick his – or her – favorite nominee, but possibly with a different Senate.

Which is another way of saying conservatives could settle for a moderate nominee now, or risk seeing a truly liberal nominee confirmed in the foreseeable future.

The thing is, in the recent past the balance of power in the Senate has shifted every two years or so.  And in 2016, 24 Republican senators are up for re-election, compared to only ten Democrats.  (Including “seven in states President Obama” – at right with Mitt Romney – “carried twice.”)

So even if the next president is Republican, he’ll face the same hostile Senate Obama faces now.  (Which could bring more gridlock.)   On the other hand, if the next president is a Democrat, he – or she – will be able to fill the vacancy with anyone he – or she – chooses.

Then of course there’s the fact that newly-elected US senators will take office on January 3, 2017.  On the other hand, President Obama’s replacement won’t take office until January 20.  In other words, if the new Senate is indeed Democratic, Obama will have 17 days in which to name his own replacement.  (And plenty of time to prepare for the Senate’s “nuclear option.”)

Which is one reason I say – if they were smart – Senate Republicans could settle for a moderate nominee now, or risk a true-liberal nominee in the really foreseeable future.

Personally – if somebody held a gun to my head and said, “Make a bet with your total life savings” – I’d have to put my wager on the latter option.

And all of this raises some further interesting questions.  Like, “Have these nominations always been so acrimonious?”  And, “Has the Supreme Court always been this powerful?”  Or possibly, “Just how did this ‘supreme court’ get started in the first place?”

For those who think the Supreme Court was only “invented” as late as 1787’s Constitutional Convention, the answer to that would be, “Not so fast, my friends!”

I noted – in a post in another blog – that the idea of a “supreme court” goes back over 3,000 years ago.  It seems the idea was hatched by Jethro, whose daughter Zipporah married Moses.  (See On Jethro inventing the supreme court.)

That prior post cited Exodus 18:13-27.  Here’s what happened.

Moses grew up a literal “Prince of Egypt.”  But about the time he learned of his Hebrew heritage, he had to run away from Egypt.  (Basically as a fleeing felon.  See Exodus 2:12.)  He fled to Midian, where he met and married the daughter of Jethro, noted above.

Then God made him return to Egypt, to “set my people free.”  While he was doing that, Moses left his wife and two sons with Jethro, in Midian.  Once he accomplished his mission, he came back home and told Jethro all he’d done.  Then he sat down to “judge the people.”

That’s when the trouble started.  (Or more precisely, got worse):

Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.  When [Jethro] saw all that Moses was doing … he said, “What is this you are doing for the people?  Why do you alone[?]  Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will.   Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”

Jethro saw right away that the work was way too much for one man.  So he advised Moses – basically – to delegate authority.  He said to “select capable men,” and trustworthy, “and appoint them as officials” – judges – “over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”

These “lower court” judges – illustrated at right – could handle the simple cases, of which there were many.  (After they’d been given the functional equivalent of today’s legal education.)  In turn, with Moses only having to handle difficult cases, “that will make your load lighter:”

Moses listened to his father-in-law…  He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.  They served as judges for the people at all times.  The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.

And that’s the basic idea behind today’s Supreme Court.  That it will only deal with “hard cases,” leaving minor cases for lower-court judges.  (Like Moses did.)

Of course that was before the idea of the separation of powers.  (Dividing American government into three distinct branches.)  Then too, that was  before today’s nominating process evolved into a true media event.  (If not Media circus.)  

With that in mind I say, “Here’s looking ahead – if not forward – to a fascinating next-nine-months.”

*   *   *   *

In closing, some final notes on Justice Scalia.  Like one from Ethan Bronner (32).  The occasion was Scalia’s first being nominated to the Court in 1986.  (Over Robert Bork, at left, with President Reagan):

Although deeply and somewhat idiosyncratically conservative, Scalia had little real controversy in his record.  Nicknamed Nino, he was also an irrepressibly charming man with a hearty, warm laugh, a weakness for opera, and many friends in both the judiciary and the academy.

And a note that – every once in a while – he could spring a surprise in his opinions.

For example, the 1988 case, Coy v. Iowa.  John Coy was convicted of sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls.  At trial, the girls testified behind a large screen, so they didn’t have to look at Coy as they testified.  When the case got to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion reversing the convictions, saying they violated the Confrontation Clause.

In 1989, the Pepperdine Law Review wrote a blistering rebuke of Justice Scalia’s opinion. (And/or his legal reasoning.)  See Coy v. Iowa:  A Constitutional Right of Intimidation:

The Supreme Court’s holding in Coy v. Iowa is infected with faulty reasoning and is inconsistent with contemporary, mainstream confrontation clause analysis…  The new requirement of actual face-to-face confrontation is not supported by logic nor is it founded on legal precedent…  Coy’s addition to this area of the law is not logical, but deviates from a long line of case law and ultimately adds a right that exists solely by itself.  It appears that the Supreme Court has created a constitutional right of intimidation.  [E.A.]

Which leads to a couple more asides.  For one thing, Pepperdine law school isn’t exactly known as a “bastion of liberal thinking.”  For another, Ken Starr – bane of the (Bill) Clinton presidency – served as dean of the law school from 2004 to 2010.  So:

Like I said, sometimes “Nino” could surprise you…

*   *   *   *

A “more conservative” – 1956 – view of Jethro (with Charlton Heston)…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of bible-history.com/studybible/exodus/18/2.  See also On Jethro inventing the supreme court.  Or see Exodus 18: Moses and Jethro – Bible Encyclopedia.

Re: Senators up for re-election in 2016.  See United States Senate elections, 2016 – Wikipedia, and 10 senators who could lose in 2016 | The Hill.

The Romney-Obama photo is courtesy of Barack Obama – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Former Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama shake hands in the Oval Office on November 29, 2012, following their first meeting since President Obama’s re-election.”

Re: Obama’s 23-day window.  See How Obama Could Win Supreme Court Battle — Even If Republicans Take the White House.

The “not so fast” image is courtesy of Lee Corso – Wikipedia.  See also Lee Corso’s ‘Not so fast, my friends’ gets autotuned (Video).

The “lower court judges” image is courtesy of Judge – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Judges at the International Court of Justice.”

Re: Today’s nominating process as “a true media event:”

…in the modern appointment process, Presidents typically announce their Supreme Court nominations to the nation before broadcast television cameras in carefully staged presidential news events.  In turn, nearly all of the official confirmation process that follows … is conducted in public session, receives intensive news media coverage, and is watched by hundreds of thousands (and sometimes millions) of American television viewers.

See Supreme Court Appointment Process … Foreign Press Center.

The Ethan Bronner quote is from his 1989 book, Battle for Justice[:]  How the Bork Nomination Shook America.  (Anchor Books, published by Doubleday, at page 32.)   Bronner also noted – at pages 117-18 – the prevailing Republican opinion when Richard Nixon was president:

In a publicized letter to Ohio Senator William B. Saxbe, later Attorney General, Nixon accused the Senate of denying him a historic right to see his choices appointed.  That right, he said, had been granted to all previous presidents, and the advice and consent function of the Senate was clearly meant to be no more than pro forma.

Re: Coy v. Iowa.  See also Protection of Child Witnesses and the Right of Confrontation;  A Balancing of Interests.

Re: Pepperdine Law School.  See My daughter’s applying to Law schools – She said Pepperdine?  One person commented that it was extremely conservative and with a “strong Christian bent.”  Another response:  “Is she political?  If so where does she lean?  Pepperdine isn’t exactly a school most liberal leaning [sic] would decide on.”  And finally see The State of LGBT Affairs at Pepperdine University: 

In 2014, the university was ranked by the Princeton Review as No. 7 on its list of “Top 20 LGBT Unfriendly Schools.”  Pepperdine ranked No. 19 in 2013 and No. 17 in 2011.  College Magazine also ranked Pepperdine as No. 4 on its list of “Top 10 Most Prude Colleges,” in 2012, citing the university’s actions in regard to LGBT students as a factor in its ranking.

Re: Scalia’s opinion in Coy v. Iowa.  He traced the right of Confrontation back to the “Roman Governor Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Paul[:]  ‘It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face to face.'”   (Not to mention “Richard II, Act 1, sc. 1.”)  He also quoted President Eisenhower,  who “once described face-to-face confrontation as part of the code of his hometown of Abilene, Kansas… ‘In this country, if someone dislikes you, or accuses you, he must come up in front.  He cannot hide behind the shadow.'”

Note also the emphasized phrase, “created a constitutional right of intimidation.”  That seems especially ironic given Scalia’s insistence that judges should not “create new laws,” but must – in the case of the Supreme Court – stick to the Founder’s “original intent.”  See e.g., Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law.

Re: Ken Starr’s tenure as dean of Pepperdine.  See Dean at Pepperdine’s school of law is named president of Baylor University.

The lower image is courtesy of destination-yisrael.biblesearchers.com/destination-yisrael.  Among other things the article  noted, “According to Jewish tradition, Yithro” – Jethro – “did convert to Judaism with his whole family.”  Then too, the image seems to be from the 1956 movie Ten Commandments, with Charlton Heston as Moses.  (And Eduard Franz as Jethro.)