The Trump Lackeys

The Trump lackeys seem to be standing by him despite being charged themselves with serious felonies. All this is doing is making their attorneys rich, at least those who are lucky enough to be getting paid.

A prime example is the case against former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for interference in the Georgia vote count. His attorneys filed a frivolous motion to remove his case to federal court, on the ridiculous basis that he was performing his duties as Chief of Staff when he interjected himself into the Georgia election process.

This was a meritless claim on so many levels that one hardly knows where to begin. He testified that he just happened to be in Georgia visiting his kids in college, and decided to stop in to observe the vote-counting process. Totally absurd, as the vote-counting is by law a state function and the federal government has no legitimate role in it, and he was not even permitted in the room under Georgia law.

And the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from involvement in political activity, so by definition it could not have been a part of his duties.

Faced with a loser of a case, a good attorney will advise a client to cut his or her losses and work out a deal to resolve the case. The Trump lackeys either have poor attorneys or are too stubborn to listen to them.

The First Republican Debate

Eight GOP candidates participated in Wednesday's debate. Here are some of my takeaways.

Only two candidates indicated they would not support Donald Trump if he were convicted of a crime, the two being Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie. And one, Vivek Ramaswamy, indicated he would pardon Trump on day one.

Ramaswamy was the most interesting of the candidates. He started out coming across as an electric, very charismatic, character, but by the end he had been so battered and bruised by criticism from the other candidates that he was revealed to be the inexperienced interloper that he is. Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and Chris Christie were the most agressive critics of Ramaswamy, who really self-destructed when he called climate change "a hoax".

Oddly, the candidates pretty much left Ron DeSantis alone and went after Ramaswamy instead. My theory for this is that they recognized that DeSantis is a failing candidate and would self-destruct if left alone. DeSantis came across as arrogant, angry, and uniquely unlikable. His performance was easily the worst of the eight. He repeatedly refused to give a straight answer to simple questions, instead going into prepared rants. He wouldn't answer whether he favored a federal abortion ban, even when asked by a reporter after the debate. And he wouldn't answer whether he thought Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th, 2021.

Mike Pence was unusually (for him) aggressive, which might help him some. But he also made a fool of himself by repeatedly interrupting the others, so much so that he had to be ademonished by one of the moderators. Pence used a line I'd hoped I would never hear again, which is that "we need a government as good and decent as the American people". To me this is total baloney. Pence seemingly was trying to be a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, but there was only one Reagan, and Pence's efforts fell flat. Other candidates were correct in pointing out that we have serious problemns, and morale is low in this country. To say that our best days lie ahead of us, as Pence did, just sounds like nonsense, and ignores the need to solve the serious problems facing this country.

Pence had a cringeworthy moment when he told Ramaswamy "I'll talk slower", a patronizing comment which was reminiscent of that infamous moment in the 1984 vie-presidential debate, when George H.W. Bush said to Geraldine Ferraro, "Let me help you with the difference between" (two named countries), a remark so condescending that it elicited audible gasps from the audience.

Tim Scott gave a disappointing performance. He could have helped himself with a compelling performnce, but instead he was bland and unimpressive. Doug Burgum, the North Dakoota governor, had a unique prspective as a small town guy who espoused small town values. He will certainly move up in the polls.

Nikki Haley probably helped herself the most. She would clearly be the best candidate for the general election. But, given the sorry state of today's GOP, there is little chance of her getting the nomination.

Haley had several moments which stand out. She vigorously called out Ramaswamy for his lack of foreign policy experience, saying he had no such exerience, "and it shows". Then, turning to the audience, she repeated, "It shows". In discussing the war in Ukraine, she took a suble and very effective swipe at DeSantis, who had said that he would not support additional funding for Ukraine until European countries start doing their part. Without mentioning DeSantis by name, she pointed out that eleven European countries are spending more as a percentage of GDP than we are for the defense of Ukraine. A third highlight moment for Haley is when she asserted that the Republicans are as guilty as Democrats for the explosion in the national debt. She pointed to the $7.4 billion in earmarks requested by Republicans in the 2024 budget, compared to only $2.8 billion asked for by Democrats. “So you tell me who are the big spenders,” she said. “I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House."

All eight shamelessly demogogued the abortion issue. Same with the inflation issue. They all repeatsedly blamed Joe Biden for the recent inflation, even though he is clearly not to blame. The inflation is caused by the cut-off of oli from Russia, the reduction in agricultural products from Ukraine, and the supply chain bottlenecks caused by the pandemic. U.S. inflation is less than in any of the other developed covuntries, so this should be a plus issue for Biden, rather than a negative. But this type of demagogic criticism is all the GOP can muster against Biden. And of course noone mentioned that unemployment is at a 50-year low.

Football belongs in the fall, not the summer

I was shocked to see the local high school football team practicing in the first week of August. Back in the day you couldn't start practice until August 20th.

And now they're actually playing games in August! With global warming being what it is, the football season should be starting later, not earlier! Do we not care about the health and welfare of our youth?

The Iowa Caucuses

Almost all of the Republican presidential candidates are at the Iowa State Fair. I am totally perplexed by this obsession with Iowa. A review of the history reveals that the winner of the Iowa caucuses is the eventual nominee only about a third of the time in contested elections.

This review shows these winners: for Democrats, Muskie won in 1972, with eventual nominee McGovern 2nd; Gebhardt won in 1988, with eventual nominee Dukakis 3rd; Harkin 1st in 1992, with eventual nominee Clinton 4th (with only 3% of the vote!)

On the GOP side, Bush won over Reagan in 1980, Dole won over Bush in 1988, Huckabee won over McCain in 2008, Santorum won over Romney in 2012, and Cruz won over Trump in 2016.

Caucuses are a horrible way for a political party choose its candidates. because only the most passionate party members turn out, and these are usually the most extreme party members. The result is we get radical leftists from the Dems, and radical rightists from the GOP, adding to the horrible polarization in today's politics.

"The Journalist and the Murderer", by Janet Malcom

This is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. The author delves into the complex relationships between journalists and the subjects they are writing about.

The book is about one of the most interesting legal cases I've ever encountered. Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of the murder of his wife and two children, sued Joe McGinnis, whom he had authorized to write a book about his murder trial, and had made a part of his defense team. The book that McGinnis eventually published, called "Fatal Vision", took the position that MacDonald was guilty, which MacDonald alleged was a violation of the implied agreemnt between the two that the author would publish a book from the subject's point of view. A verdict was obtained for MacDonald, and the case was settled during the appeals process.

Malcom interviewed all of the players in the case who would talk to her. In interviewing MacDonald's attorney, the attorney said that his initial reaction to MacDonald was that he was "libel-proof", meaning that it is impossible to libel a convicted murderer. But as he investigated the facts, which showed that the author had spent four years ingratiating himself with the murderer, thereby disguising the fact that the book he was writing took the position that the subject was guilty, he changed his mind and went forward with the case, and won it.

Malcom's book is a philosophical essay on the complex relationship between journalists and their subjects. There are no easy answers here, but it is certainly a topic with exploring. Malcolm clearly believes that McGinnis crossed way over the line here, and, therefore, that she agrees with the jury verdict against him. But the question of where exactly the line is is something that cannot be clearly defined.

Malcom impresses me as one of the four great female journalists writing intelligently and thoughtfully, usually in "The New Yorker", about issues in the last half of the 20th century, along with Renata Adler, Joan Didion, and Hannah Arendt.

Great Fun at the Bridge Club

A memorable hand is one thing that is so great about our local bridge club. (The other is the great social interaction.)

My last hand in our most recent game came playing with Karen, against Linda and Anita. I was dealt a hand with six hearts and (slightly) fewer than opening points, so I was ready to open with a weak two bid. However, Karen had dealt and opened one diamond. So at that point, I was ready to raise to one heart. But then, Linda overcalled in front of me with a one heart bid!

I was void in diamonds, so I felt compelled to bid, but Linda had foreclosed my planned heart bid. Then I noticed that I had four spades, headed by the Ace. So I bid one spade. Karen responded with four spades, and I must have made quite a face in response to this, because the whole table erupted in laughter.

It turned out that Karen had four spades, including a couple of honors, with a void in hearts. So, we both had a void in the other's suit. Unfortunately, when I tried to pull trump, Anita showed out on the second trick, so I knew that Linda had started with four trumps against me. (This is the danger with a 4-4 trump suit, compared to the more usual 5-3 split. Consulting Pascal's Triangle, the fifth row is 1-5-10-10-5-1, meaning that the chances of a 3-2 split of the defenders' trumps are (only) 20/32, or 5/8. So not as unusual as you might think to get a bad split.)

Not a complete disaster, but still presenting a serious challenge. So how do I prevent losing total control of the hand? I decided to use my remaining trumps (2 in my hand and 2 in dummy), for cross-ruffing. I ended up running myself totally out of trumps, with Linda still having two left! With four tricks to go, I led a diamond from dummy and Linda took the trick with the King of diamonds, cashed her two trumps, and then led a diamond, which gave dummy's queen the last trick! Had she had any other suit left, I would have gone down.

So, I made the contract, ending the night with +710, compared to -10 had I gone set. (+620 for the vulnerable game, rather than -100 for going down one vulnerable, a 720-point swing).

"Shadow", by Bob Woodward

This 1999 book looks at the various crises faced by the five presidents who served following the Nixon resignation caused by Watergate. Woodward demonstrates how the legacy of Waterate has causesd a weakening of the office of the presidency, making it more difficult for succeeding presidents to respond to crises.

Gerald Ford faced two major problems during his presidency. The Nixon pardon is the most obvious one. Ford hoped to put Watergate behind him and the country by pardoning Nixon, but the pardon had the opposite effect. Journalists continued to press Ford about whether there had been a deal wherein Ford would issue a pardon in exchange for Nixon's resignation. For example, during his first press conference after the pardonm, 15 out of 21 qyuestions were about Nixon or the pardon.

The other scandal of the Ford administration was little-known at the time. It involved the outright insubordination of Ford's Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, when Schlesinger refused to carry out Ford's order to send U.S. aircraft to evacuate as many South Vietnamese as possible, during the fall of Saigon in 1975. This bnreakdown in the military chain of command was, Woodward believes, "perhaps the worst and most significant scandal of the Ford presidency".

The first crisis of the Carter administration unfolded soon after he took office, after the Washington Post learned that the CIA had been making payments and other favors to King Hussein of Jordan. The favors included providing prostitutes. President Carter became irate when this was published, a posture totally at odds with his stated policy of honesty and openness.

A second crisis was the expsoure of Carter's management style, which consisted of coldness and abrasiveness toward his subordinates. It is said that Carter was following Admiral Rickover's approach of never complimenting a subordinate. Speaking of hs old boss Rickover, Carter has stated that "The absence of a comment was his compliment". Woodward concludes that Carter "was not only removed from the capital city but alienated from it. Watergate had helped produce the most unlkely president: a loner."

Then there was the Bert Lance scandal, involving shady dealings in Lance's banking past. Woodward concludes here that Carter had "ostentatiously sought high ethical and legal standards but was quick to seek an exeption for a friend".

Next came the Hamilton Jordan mess, involving allegations that he had used cocaine at a New York night club. A special proscutor was appointd to look into the allegations, and six months of investigation concluded the allegations were not true.

Then there was firing of HEW Secretary Joe Caifano. Carter said one thing in public and another in private about this sordid affair. Wooward concludes that "Carter regualarly broke his most basic promise when he campaigned for the prsidency. He did not always tell the truth."

The major crisis of the Reagan administration was the Iran-Contra scandal. A special prosecutor was appointed and spent over three years invedtigating and prosecuting the wrongdoers.

Georgem H. W. Bush had problems regarding his handling of the Gulf War. Woodward's inside account describes how Bush secretly wanted the war, and feared an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait before the war started. He kept his concerns hidden from the public, however, and Woodward concludes that "Bush did not trust the Congress or the media to sort out or explain his dilemma and responsibility without sensationalizing it. Watergate had made a sober account of the truth by the president almost impossible."

With Clinton the scandal was, of course, the Monica Lewinsky affair which Clinton tried to cover up.

Summing up, Woodward says that there are "two fundamental lessons of Watergate. First, if there is questionable activity, release the facts, whatever they are, as early and completely as possible. Second, do not allow outside inquiries, whether conducted by prosecutors, congressman or reporters, to harden into a permanent state of suspicion and warfare."

Woodward concludes that Reagan did the best of the five presidents in taking this approach. Reagan appointed a new Chief of Staff, Howard Baker, and instructed Baker to get to the bottom of the Iran-Contra fiasco. Reagan made it crystal clear to his entire staff that everyone was to cooperate fully with Baker. The result was that Reagan was able to serve out his second term with no threat of impeachment.

Clinton's response to his crisis was the worst, in that he repeatedly tried to avoid telling the truth. Had he come out immediately and confessed to what he'd done, the pubic would have been far more forgiving. The worst thing is for the truth to come out in litle dribs and drabs, keeping the matter in the news for months on end.

In my mind a companion book to "Shadow" would be Arthur Schlessinger's "The Imperial Presidency". Schlessinger chronicles how the power of the presidency, especially in war-making, has increased throughout the years. The book, published in 1973 when the Watergate investigation was all over the news, makes the case that Nixon's power grab was a logical conclusion of the movement toward an all-powerful presidency, something the Founders never contemplated.

Schlessinger says that "Watergate was potentially the best thing to have happened to the presidency in a long time", because it demonstrated to future presidents that when they place themselves above the law, there wil be serious consequences. Schlessinger says that "corruption appears to visit the White House in 50-year cycles". Hence, Watergate provided immunization against presidential wrongdoing till 2023. He was off by only seven yearss, as the election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked the end of the limited presidency.

So who is right? Woodward, who claims that Watergate's weakening of the presidency was a bad thing, or Schelessinger, who says it was a good thing? I have to side with Schlessinger here. Woodward does not make a convincing case that the crises which arose in the five presidencies following Watergate were caused, or exacerbated by, Watergate. He does, however, make a strong case that there is much to learn from Watergate about the proper way for a president to respond to those crises.

Woodward's problem is that his reporter's eye for detail prevents him from seeing the historical perspective that the historian can offer. Woodward is so consumed with the need to describe the trees, that he cannot see the forest. The fact is, as Schlessinger convincingly demonstrates, that the presidency had become too strong, with the checks and balances envisioned by our Founders having largely fallen by the wayside. Watergate helped restore those checks and balances, with Congress reasserting its oversight role, uncovering evidence of the CIA's use of assassination and other covert ops which far exceeded the proper CIA role of gathering intelligance, and enacting legislation limiting the president's powers to wage war without consulting with Congress.