Category Archives: Congress

Crock

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the U. S. House of Representatives have had the night to twist arms, make promises or threats, or do other things to cajole their own caucus to vote for a Speaker who has been in the House since 2006, has introduced only thirty bills in all that time, and has gotten none of them passed.  They’ll try again today.

Jim Jordan not only didn’t get the votes to become Speaker of the House on the first ballot yesterday, he got outvoted by Democrats.  All 212 Democrats voted for their leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Jordan had only 200 votes after twenty of his fellow Republicans voted against him.

The Republicans, who can’t get their own ducks in a row, are blaming Democrats for their failure to use their majority to pick a new Republican  Speaker to replace the ousted Kevin McCarthy.

Whose fault is this historic and ugly deadlock?

McCarthy maintains the House would not be stalemated if “every single Democrat didn’t vote with eight Republicans to shut this place down.”

That, my friends, is a crock. And it’s full to the brim.

The Democrats have no obligation to Republicans who have let four percent of their caucus run their conference.  Democrats are not in charge of putting the Republican House in order.

Democrats have scored some points by saying they’ll work with moderate Republicans to end the chaos.  But McCarthy and Jim Jordan and their supporters who have shown no interest in bipartisanship otherwise think Democrats should ride to their rescue.

Hypocrisy flows in buckets with their whining.

Perhaps the Republicans, especially those who have aligned themselves with the political evangelicals should have a discussion group about the meaning of Luke 4:23—“Physician, heal thyself.”

And to remember another old adage:  If you point a finger at someone remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.

-0-

Squirming

Posted on by
Reply

One of the biggest jobs of any reporter is to hold public officials accountable for their remarks or their actions.  Sometimes the official cannot prove a point he wants to sell to the public.

You know they’re in trouble—and they know they’re in trouble—when they refuse repeatedly to answer a straight question with a straight answer.  And all that does is make a good reporter bore in.

It should make voters ask questions themselves, chiefly, “Why is he dodging, ducking, and bobbing and weaving?” and next, “Can I trust what he’s saying.”

In our long experience of challenging the veracity of political rhetoric (and I absolutely loved doing it), I made sure our listeners heard the verbal dance of the politician who didn’t know what he (or she) was talking about or who was tripped up by issues of truth.

Governor Joe Teasdale once told me, “I’ll never lie to you but there will be times when I won’t tell you the truth.”

???

The public, as well as the reporter should always have their antennae up for such moments.  Such as a news conference in Washington—– when one of our Congressmen became a prime example last week.  Southeast Missouri Congressman Jason Smith, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, held a press conference to announce that he had 700 pages of evidence that President Biden had been involved in son Hunter’s business dealings overseas and that involvement merited impeachment.

The only problem, as pointed out by NBC reporter Ryan Nobles, is that the supposedly damning evidence was about events that supposedly happened three years before Biden was President or even a candidate for President.

Watch Smith squirm:

It is not uncommon for the person being pressed for a straight answer to cast an aspersion on the questioner or to simply refuse to take any more questions.  That, my friends, is usually a clear reason to doubt the validity of the statements.

The public should watch or listen to these kinds of events—and should wonder why this public official cannot give the public a straight answere or in some cases no answer at all. It is so frequent in our political system today that I fear the public has become inured to it.

Does Smith have legitimate information? The first hearing, which lasted six hours, has been roundly criticized from both sides as a nothingburger, to use an old phrase Ted Cruz once used to describe questions about some actions by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. FOX News Channel’s Neil Cauvoto agreed: “None of the expert witnesses today presented any proof for impeachment.”  Under questioning, the Republican’s own witnesses said there wasn’t enough evidence in the huge pile of “evidence” Smith was pushing to impeach President Biden.

Smith’s conduct in that press conference did little to build confidence in his “evidence.” And six hours of rhetoric from both sides and from chosen witnesses didn’t either.

Is his pile of paper big enough to hide a bombshell?  Not based on the other evidence—-against his evidence, apparently.

-0-

July 4th came on July 3rd this year  

Posted on by
Reply

Cartoonist Walt Kelly years ago had a popular cartoon strip called “Pogo,” about a possum and his animal friends who lived in a Georgia swamp.  Every now and then, one of them would proclaim, “Friday the 13th came on Wednesday this month!” or whatever day was appropriate.

So today we celebrate Independence Day. We can’t say we’re celebrating the fourth of July because that’s not util tomorrow.  And actually, there are several dates we can observe because the Declaration was a work in progress for almot a month before Congress adopted it.

John Adams thought July 2nd would be the day to be remembered. He wrote to wife Abigail 247 years ago today, “The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the history of America…It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forever more.”

Why July 2ns?

Let’s go back to June 7th when delegate Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

Four days later a committee of five—Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson—was appointed to write a document expressing those views. Congress recessed until July 1 while the document was written.

Jefferson reluctantly took the job of writing the first draft.  But he alone did not write the Declaration.  Adams and Franklin were his chief editors.  His first draft contained about 1850 words.

The five-member committee made about four dozen changes. Other committees of the Continental Congress made 39 more. Jefferson made five.  In the end of the document was reduced by about 25 percent, to 1,337 words.

One immediate change was made by Benjamin Franklin in the most-cited part of the document—“all men are created equal”

The idea is not Jefferson’s alone.  He borrowed the sentiment from fellow Virginian George Mason, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights that had been adopted a month earlier, saying, “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Jefferson re-wrote that idea:

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty,& the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.”

Jefferson took an already wordy sentiment and made it even more wordy.

And this is where Franklin made a significant change.  He immediately removed “sacred and undeniable” and inserted “self evident.”  Franklin biographer Walter Isaacson says Franklin argued that the new nation was to be one in which rights come from rational thinking and the consent of the governed, not from the dictates or dogmas of religion.

The document mentions God or substitute names for God several times but it does so in neutral phrasing.  This is not a Catholic God.  This is not a Christian God—in those days there were plenty of people who believed Catholics weren’t Christians and Protestant belief organizations were actively splintering into different denominations with differing interpretations of God and the Scriptures.

The God in the Declaration is nature’s God, not a denominational God for a reason.

In Jefferson’s state of Virginia, between 1768 and 1774, about half of the Baptist ministers were jailed for preaching.  In Northampton, Massachusetts—Adams’ state—eighteen Baptist ministers were jailed in one year for refusing to pay taxes to support the Congregational minister in the town.

The sentiment about God had been voiced in the very first sentence of the Declaration that asserted that the colonies are separate from England and as a unified entity assume “among the powers of the earth and the separate and equal stations to which “the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them.”

The Congress resumed its session on July 2 and the Lee Resolution was adopted and debate on the Declaration began immediately.  For the next two days, Congress made changes—the most significant one being the removal of a section that attacked slavery.

It was late in the morning of July 4 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration and the handwritten original with all of its changes was given to printer John Dunlap.  But until August 2, the only signature on the document was that of convention president John Hancock.

The document was not signed July 4th—the famous painting by John Trumbull showing the five-man committee turning in the document with other members seated behind them.

Most members of the Continental Congress did not sign the Declaration until August 27.  And there were stragglers: Richard Henry Lee, Elbridge Gerry (of gerrymander infamy), and Oliver Walcott did not sign until November 19.  And it was not until 1781 that Thomas McKean added his signature.

McKean had left Congress a few days after adoption of the Declaration to become a colonel in the Pennsylvania Association, a military unit despite its name created by Franklin.

They promised their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when they signed the document.  Several, tragically, kept that promise.

Five of them were captured by the British, branded as traitors, and died after being tortured. A dozen saw their homes burned.  The sons of two of them were killed in the war. Nine of them fought in the war and died of their wounds or the hardships of the war.

Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  Those words and the passionate commitments behind them meant something in 1776.

As we honor them today, we should be haunted by those words and wonder what place they have in our political world today.

Expungement  

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve written about this before. This is an unfortunate update

Eddie Gaedel presented major league baseball with a peculiar problem in 1951 when St. Louis Browns owner Bill Veeck sent him to bat in a game against the Detroit Tigers.

You’re probably familiar with the story. Gaedel, who was described by Veeck as “by golly, the best darn midget who ever played big-league ball.”

Eddie was three feet, seven inches tall.  He weighed sixty pounds. His uniform number was 1/8.  Actually it was the uniform of the Browns’ nine-year old batboy, William DeWitt Jr., now the Chairman of the Cardinals.  Detroit pitcher Bob Cain walked him on four straight pitches. Gadel scampered to first base where he was quickly replaced by Jim Delsing.

American League President Will Harridge was not impressed by the stunt. He accused Veeck of making a mockery of baseball. He voided Gaedel’s contract and ordered Gaedel’s appearance from the baseball records.

Veeck argued that striking Gaedel from the record book would have to mean the game was never played because Gaedel had been the leadoff hitter and if there was no leadoff hitter there could be no other hitters either.  Harridge finally allowed Gaedel to have his place in the record books a year later.

The story of Eddie Gaedel comes to mind with word that some mental midgets in Washington want to expunge from the records of the House of Representatives the two impeachments of Donald Trump. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has to please people such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Elise Stefanik (she’s the Republican Conference Chair) because they granted him his tenuous hold on the Speakership, will let their resolution be heard by a House committee that can decide whether to send it to the floor for debate.

Such is the looney world into which our Congress has sunk.

Eddie Gaedel did lead off a major league baseball game regardless of Veeck’s motives (he was quite a promoter in his day and was known for his stunts).  Donald Trump was impeached twice by the House.  Erasing the record does not erase the facts whether you’re three-feet-seven or  you’re six feet-two, whether you’re a paid performer in a major league uniform or whether you’re a (well, we’ll let you form  your own thoughts about the equivalency of Eddie Gaedel and Donald Trump).

The official score cards of that day in 1951 list Gaedel on the Browns’ roster and somewhere in attic trunks might be the unofficial score cards kept by some fans who were witnesses to that day’s events.  The scorecards don’t lie. The news accounts don’t lie.  Will Harridge finally admitted the official records of baseball couldn’t lie, either.

Thousands of pages of the Congressional record have been printed and circulated recording those events although the idea that members can “revise and extend their remarks” for that record make it less officially accurate than baseballs statistics. It is, nonetheless, on printed pages that cannot be recalled from those that have them.

Expunging the impeachments from the House records would mean the Senate was playing some kind of a weird game on February 5, 2020 when it acquitted him of a charge that will not exist (somehow) in the House record, if this airheaded movement is approved by the full House.

The second impeachment has always been questionable.  It happened after Trump had taken his boxes of shirts and shoes and pants and documents to Mar-a-Lago.  The Senate on February 13, 2021, thirteen months after Trump and his boxes went south, voted 57-43 to convict him.  But a two-thirds majority was needed, so Trump was acquitted—allowing him to crow loudly that he had been completely cleared of any wrongdoing in the events of the previous January 6.

And once again, the Senate spent a day dealing with something that the great thinkers in the House now want to declare never officially happened.

One of singer Paul Simon’s greatest songs is “The Boxer.”

It doesn’t refer to our ex-President but the title comes to mind as we have thought of him in this discussion, as does the chorus:

Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie

Expungement would be a lie-lie-lie-lie-lie.

Eddie Gaedel is still in the baseball record books.  Donald Trump deserves the same honor in the Congressional Records.

 

Disintegration

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve heard it several times in recent days and heard it again this past weekend when a talking head on one of the talking head shows said we are watching “the disintegration of the Republican Party” with the indictment of ex-president Trump and the early support he’s getting from his ardent supporters including two former Missouri Attorneys General.

Senator Josh Hawley calls the charge “an assault on our democracy, pure and simple,” interesting words coming from a man who encouraged that huge crowd of “tourists” to “tour” the U. S. Capitol in a memorable way two years ago.

His successor, Eric Schmitt, calls it “a purely partisan case.”  Schmitt is remembered because he decided to meddle in the 2020 election in four states in what surely was a non-partisan defense of popular democracy. Schmitt, as we recall, was 0-for-4.

And newly-minted Congressman Mark Alford from Raymore, who thinks prosecutor Alvin Bragg  “will clearly dig up old parking tickets if that means Donald Trump cannot run for President,” and says the charges are “nothing short of political persecution.”  Alford was one of Trump’s endorsement successes in the elections last year.

Politico reports, by the way, that Trump went 10-11 in his congressional endorsements last year, eight of those victories coming in districts that already leaned Republican, including Alford’s district.

It is important to remember that Trump is by far not the first federal public official to be indicted. Kentucky Congressman Matthew Lyon was found guilty of violating the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. He was re-elected while he spent four months in jail.

Until now, the highest federal official indicted was Vice-President Spiro agenew, who pleaded no contest to income tax evasion in 1973.

Much is made of Donald Trump being the first PRESIDENT indicted.  It’s worth noting historically but it has no meaning otherwise.  Lyon was the first member of the House to be indicted. Joseph R. Burton, in 1904, was the first sitting senator to be indicted—by a federal grand jury in St. Louis. He was convicted of taking a bribe, fined $2,500 and ordered to serve six months in jail in Ironton, Missouri. He resigned after losing two appeals to the Supreme Court.

The point is: Somebody has to be first.  Trump is the first ex-president to be indicted.

Point noted. He joins a firsts list of  Lyon, Burton, and Agnew.

Now, get on with it.

The headlines have gone to those who have thundered their support of Trump.  Slight notice has been paid to those who have been more judicious in their comments, if they have commented at all.

The silent ones will be the ones who count when it comes to a post-Trump GOP.

It seems obvious that inter-party support for Trump is declining and the ratcheting-up of the noise on his behalf is a strident indication that the remaining Trumpists know their grasp on the short hairs is weakening.

The Republican Party is not “disintegrating” as those who speak more broadly than discretion should suggest are suggesting.  Indictment by indictment, more and more Republicans will be willing to do unto Trump what he has done unto so many others—throw him under the bus (The phrase, by the way, is believed to have started in British politics in the late 1970s).

Here’s the difference between the Trump era of the Republican Party and the post-Trump era—it is the difference between a fish and a tree.

An old political saying, from an unknown origin is, “A fish rots from the head down.”  It generally means that when the leader of a movement dies, the movement will, through time, die too.

But a political party is not a fish.  A political party is more like a tree, which grows from its roots.  Its tip might die but when the dead part if lopped off, the lower part regrows.

So it will be for the Republican Party.  The focus today is on a diseased top branch.  When removed, whether by a windstorm of justice or by intentional cutting and pruning by those who are tired of dealing with it, the roots and the trunk will remain and they will sprout new branches and new, clean leaves.

The focus today is on an element of the national party.  But the roots and the trunk of the party are at the state level and they will remain, and not just in Missouri. The windstorm or the cutting and pruning might make the tree less attractive for a while or reduce its output of political fruit, but it will survive.

Many years ago, our last family vacation before children left for college and ultimately for the real world, we went to Yellowstone National Park.  It was the year after the great fires had blackened so much of the land.  But already we were seeing small green leaves emerge amidst the charred stumps and scorched grass.

The Republican Party will not disintegrate despite gloomy forecasts from talking heads, although the rotten top branch might be transformed in the political fireplace into an “ash heap of history” a phrase attributed to Ronald Reagan, whose party Trump usurped.

If You Think Congress Is A Mess Now—-

Posted on by
Reply

You’d better hope some Republicans in the U.S. House fail in their efforts to take away your rights to make it better.

Several of these birds are trying to whip up support for a change in the United States Constitution to limit the number of times you and I can vote to send someone to represent us.

They say they want to confront the “corruption” of career politicians.

House Joint Resolution 11 would limit House members to six years and Senators to twelve years.

That’s worse than Missouri’s term limits and Missouri’s term limits, take the word of one who has watched the impact from the front row, are a disaster.

Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina finished Congressman Mick Mulvaney’s term with a special election win in 2017. He has since been elected in 2018, 2020 and 2022.

Do you sense a whiff of hypocrisy here?

Do you suppose he will voluntarily step aside after this term?

His bill has 44 cosponsors.

His term limits idea would work the same way our term limit amendment worked when it was adopted 31 years ago.  The clock would be reset so a member could only run for three MORE terms after the amendment would go into effect.  Past terms would not count.

So let’s assume his idea is passed by the Congress (fat chance, at least in this term) and then is ratified before the 2024 election. He could still run in ’24, ’26 and ’28. So, the sponsor of this three-term limit could serve six terms and part of a seventh.

And if voters in his state react the same way Missourians reacted, he would.

His argument is the same debunked argument we heard in 1992. He told Fox News Digital last week, “It’s inappropriate for our elected leaders to make long-term careers off the backs of the American taxpayers. We’ve seen the corruption it can led to. While there is value in experience, it’s easy to become disconnected from those you serve after too many years in Washington. Most American support term limits, but the problem is convincing politicians they ought to serve for a period of time and then go home and live under the laws they enacted.”

Only one of the 44 co-sponsors is a Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine. He says the House of Representatives was “never intended at its inception to be a place where someone served for 30 years.”

His argument harkens to the Articles of Confederation, which set limits for members of Congress at six years.  But when the Constitution was written after delegates learned the Articles just didn’t work, the delegates opted for a system of checks and balances, the bittest check and balance being the voters.

James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 53 that “[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them.”

Madison’s allies felt the better check on corruption was regular elections than short turnovers in office.

They placed their confidence in the citizens, in the voters. Not so for this bunch.

Golden is serving his third term right now.  Let’s see if he files for re-election next year.

Among those fervently in support are Matt Gaetz of Florida, a prime example of the kind of person who would bring dignity to the office. He is serving his fourth term. Want to bet he will voluntarily decide he has been around more than long enough next year?

Another bandwagon rider is James Comer of Kentucky, also a four-termer.

Representative Don Bacon, another four-termer, thinks this idea is just ducky, too.

Gaetz thinks term limits would help lead to a “more effective legislature.”

If one calls the process by which Speaker McCarthy was elected earlier this year “effective,” I guess he has a point.  Drawing a name out of a hat would have been more effective.

Comer says his constituents are “excited” about the idea. Does that mean they would be “excited” to see him leave after this term?  They can prove how excited they are about term limits by kicking him to the galleries in 2024.

Bacon, who doubts this thing will fly in the U.S. Senate, thinks it’s a “good thing.”  We’ll see just how “good” he really thinks it is at filing time next year.

The tragic thing about this kind of gut-thinking rhetoric is that those who spout it aren’t honest about the “corruption” they claim they want to fight.

We wonder what a close look at their campaign finance reports will show.  Who has their hooks in them?  What is their voting record on issue their big-money donors are interested in?

What do the budget hawks among them think should be slashed or eliminated?  Things on which average folks rely?  Or might it be things the wealthy use to get wealthier—you know, all those things that the big-money folks receive with the questionable contention that the benefits will trickle down to the little people such as you and me or those below us on the economic scale?

Let’s put it this way:

If you are not scared out of your shoes that this entire notion, from its national security and national defense implications and that the national economy would be left in the hands of Matt Gaetz (four terms), Marjorie Taylor-Greene (second term), or Lorena Boebert (second term)—or even relatively responsible people—who would have only four years experience heading into their last terms forever, you should be.

And let’s not even think about talking about George Santos and whether his colleagues from the majority party should have term limited him after three DAYS.

Consider our current House of Representative members:

Cori Bush  second term

Ann Wagner  tenth term

Blaine Leutkemeyer  eighth term

Mark Alford  first term

Emanuel Cleaver  tenth term

Sam Graves  twelfth term

Eric Burlison first term

Jason Smith sixth term

If you favor term limits in Congress and if you voted for five of these people in the last election, you’re an undeniable hypocrite. Bush, Alford, and Burlison are still using training wheels.

But the other five are, in the eyes of Norman and his deluded disciples, corrupt, serving “on the backs of taxpayers,” “disconnected,” and—God help us—career politicians.

Forget that the voters decide every two years if their careers should end. .

The Hell with the voters.  They don’t know what they’re doing when they send their representatives and their senators back for another term. The crew behind House Resolution 11 is clearly the moral superiors of the voters and they know that you and I have no business making the decision more than three times on who will represent us although your critical observer has no trouble suggesting there are some people who should be limited to one term—and even that is too long in a few cases.

The responsibility for the good or bad in our government remains with the voters. There are problems with manipulative media and the influence of secret and unlimited money. Perhaps if Norman and his friends focused their considerable intellectual efforts on those issues, they would do more good than they will by limiting the choices you and I can make on election day.

But that’s too hard.  Helping to educate a public with an increasingly short attention span when it comes to politics takes far more effort than telling them, “We’ve fixed it so you only have to endure these crooks for six years. And then you can elect another one.”  Encouraging citizen irresponsibility is easier.  And it sounds better.  And it might get them elected to a fourth term.  Or more.

Term limits is an unending train wreck.

I’m not buying a ticket on that train and I sure hope you don’t either.

 

 

Now Here’s a Match Made in—– 

Posted on by
2

Marjorie Taylor Greene and George Santos.  What a pair.

They’re attacking our schools for “sexualizing” our children with school library books. They want to remove “sexually explicit material” from schools. They’re co-sponsoring a bill with Rep. Cory Mills of Florida, who wants to “end the sexualization of children in schools.”  News of the proposal was first reported by LGBTQ Nation.

Well, sure.  The last thing we need are some eight-year olds thinking about sex AND READING about it in Alex Comfort’s latest edition of The Joy of Sex that is on the shelf next to Green Eggs and Ham in the elementary school library.

As long as we’re advocating a federal law that regulates what children of whatever age can read, perhaps someone can refer us adults to a list of peer-reviewed research that proves schools are sexualization Petrie dishes.

A Congressional website says the bill wants to “prohibit a publishing house from knowingly furnishing sexually explicit material to a school or an educational agency, to prohibit Federal funds from being provided to a school that obtains or an educational agency that distributes sexually explicit material, and for other purposes.”

Well, there goes the Bible:

You are my private garden, my treasure, my bride, a secluded spring, a hidden fountain. Your thighs shelter a paradise of pomegranates with rare spices. (Song of Solomon 4:12-13)

“Mom, I know what thighs are but what do they have to do with a pomegranate?”

Like the finest apple tree in the orchard is my lover among other young men. I sit in his delightful shade and taste his delicious fruit.” (Song of Solomon 2:3)

“Hey, Dad, where’s your apple?”

And then there’s the family sleep-over:

After Sodom was destroyed, Lot took his two daughters to live with them in a cave. One day, his older daughter said to the younger: “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children — as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father… So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. (Genesis 19:35)

As far as “sexually explicit material,” that’s right up there.  And then we have this rather explicit advice from First Corinthians:

The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife. Do not deprive each other of sexual relations unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Critics of proposals such as the one addressed by these two—dare we describe them in Shakespearian terms as “strange bedfellows”—suggest “sexually explicit material” is code for the LGBTQ community, a favorite flogging target of the far right. And, bearing in mind some descriptions of the sexuality of Santos, should we wonder if his sponsorship of such an act is self-flagellation? He is, after all, one of ten LGBTQ members of Congress and the only one who identifies as a Republican and further, is the only member of Congress who reportedly competed in a drag queen contest.

Will the new rule keep children from reading about his performance?

While much of the focus is on the “sexually explicit” language, the concluding words, “and for other purposes,” also is troubling.  Those words seem to open the door for some serious mischief dealing with various kinds of intellectual freedom.

Cultivating a fear of others who are different from us is a hot ticket for some in the political game and we should not become tolerant of it.

Perhaps we should not be reluctant to remind those who want to make their morality your law and mine that Mark has reminded us that “adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly…come from inside and defile a person.” Personally, your scriptural interpreter emphasizes “malice, deceit…(and) arrogance” in thinking of these two political giants.

We wonder if any of these folks have read Paul’s letter to the Christians at Ephesus: “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

The bill, it is nice to hear, does not have a large number of sponsors, nor does it have a lot of support and faces many speed bumps in its road. We hope the eventual result is four flat tires.

Presidents Day

Posted on by
Reply

On this Presidents Day, we pause to think of Missouri’s Presidents.  There are two, only one of whom is a native. And there might be a third.

And then there are a lot of folks who once entertained thoughts of high political grandeur but who fell by the wayside.  We spent some time back in a Missourinet studio last week talking for today’s edition of “Showme Today” about our presidents and some of our presidential wannabes.

In the old railroad depot in Atchison, Kansas is the smallest presidential library in the country. It’s considered an unofficial one because of the peculiar circumstances of David Rice Atchison’s perhaps-presidency.  His grave stone in Plattsburg tells a story:

Missouri’s northwesternmost county is named for him, way up in the corner. For years, Missouri and Nebraska feuded over 5,000 acres known as McKissick’s Island that was left on the Missouri side of the river after a flood in 1867 changed the river channel. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1904 that McKissick Island was still Nebraska territory. It took 95 more years for the two states to agree on an interstate compact approved by Congress that created the legal boundary. But the only way Nebraskans can get to it is by driving through part of Iowa and into Atchison County, Missouri.

Atchison, Kansas is 24 miles southwest of St. Joseph. David Rice Atchison was from Liberty but in the days of “Bleeding Kansas” when the state was deciding if it would be slave or free, Atchison led one of the groups of “border ruffians” who went to Kansas and voted to elect a pro-slavery legislature.

He served two terms in the U. S. Senate. He was so popular that he was elected president pro tempore thirteen times. In those days, the vice-president presided over the Senate and the pro tem was elected and presided only on those rare times when the vice-president wasn’t there.

Vice-President George M. Dallas left the Senate for the rest of the session on March 2, 1849 and the senate picked Atchison to preside in his place.

Presidents were inaugurated later back there—March 4th (the 25th Amendment adopted in 1933 moved the date to January).  The date fell on a Sunday in 1849. Pesident James Polk signed his last bill early in the moring of March 4 because the Senate had been in session all night. In fact, it didn’t adjourn until 7 a.m.

Incoming President Zachary Taylor did not want to be sworn in on the Sabbath and did not take the oath of office until noon, Monday, March 8.

Some argue that Atchison, as president pro tem, was in line to be president of the country under the succession act of 1792.  But Congress had adjourned its session that Sunday morning, meaning Atchison no longer held a Congressional office and therefore there was no line of succession.

He never claimed he was president, “never for a moment” as he wrote in 1880. The truth seems to be that there was no president and no congress for almost a day. In those days of slow national and international communication, there was no crisis.

That’s why the Atchison presidential library, those two display cases in the railroad depot, is “unofficial.”

Incidentally—there was a corresponding controversy in 1877 when Rutheford B. Hays, apparently seeking to avoid another Atchison affair, took took the oath of office in a private ceremony on Saturday, March 3.  But President Grant’s term did not end officially until March 4th. Some think that meant we had TWO presidents for a day.

Speaking of Grant—

Missouri claims him although he was not a native.  He married Julia Dent, the daughter of a wealthy St. Louis County farmer and took up farming in the area.  Grant was Ohio-born and his real name Hiram Ulysses Grant.  He didn’t like his first name and preferred to be known byhis mddleone. He became known as Ulysses S. Grant because Congressman Thomas Hamer nominated him for appointment to West Point apparently not realizing his first name was Hiram and addig a “S” as a middle initial—Grant’s mother’s maiden name was Simpson.

There is at least one letter from Grant during his West Point years in which he signed, “U. H. Grant.”  In time he came to accept the Ulysses S(for Simpson) Grant.  His tactics during the Civil War led to his nickname of “Unconditional Surrender.

Grant’s father-in-law gave the young couple some of his land for their own farm. But the venture was unsuccessful. He also was unsuccessful in other business ventures.

He rejoined the Army at the start of the war and was a Colonel based in Mexico Missouri when he read in a newspaper that he had been appointe Brigadier General.  He commended the unit at Jefferson City for a few days before being dispatched to southeast Missouri where he began building his fame.

Missourian Mark Twain became his close frend in his last days when the family was living in very poor conditions—there was no presidential pension then—and Grant was slowly dying of throat cancer.  Twain arranged to have Grant’s two-volume autobiography published after his death. Sales gave the family some financial security.

In 1903 the Busch family bought the land, now known as Grant’s Farm. Today his farm, his cabin, and the mansion of the Dent Family are part of the Busch family estate.

And that brings us to our native-borne president, Harry Truman, who also has an “S” that means nothing. He was born in Lamar, in southwest Missouri, a town where famous Wyatt Earp had his first law enforcement job.  He also has an S between his first and last names but, unlike Grant, it’s not a mistake.  Formally, there’s no period after the letter because it doesn’t stand for any specific name although he often put a period there.  The “S” honors his two grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.

His extensive story is a familiar one to Missourians but there’s a special angle that links Jefferson City to the Man from Independence.   In the 1930s while he was the Presiding Judge of the Jackson County administratie court, President Roosevelt appointed him to head the administrations jobs program.  Three days a week, he drove to Jefferson City where he did business out of a fourth-floor room at the Capitol.  It was during that time that the Pendergast political machine in Kansas City called him to a meeting in Sedalia to tell him he was going to challenge incumbent U.S. Senator Roscoe Patterson in the 1934 election.  There are those who think the Pendergasts wanted him to lose so they could put their own man in the presiding judge’s chair and get Truman out of Jackson County politics. Truman, however, beat Patterson, beginning a career in Washington that led him in 1944 to the vice-presidential nomination and ultimately his historic years in the White House.

We’ve had some others who sought the presidency or thought they might seek it.

Governor Benjamin Gratz Brownan Unconditional Unionist in the Civil War and a founder of he Republican Party in Missouri.  He tried to get Abraham Lincoln replaced as the Republican nominee in 1864, strongly opposed President Johnson’s Reconstruction policies, was defeated in the 1872 convention by New York newspaper editor Horace Greeley—and they ultimately were crushed by former Missouri failed farmer U.S. Grant.

Congressman Richard Parks Bland was the leader going into the 1896 Democratic National Convention.  But his marriage to a Catholic woman generated opposition within the party and he lost to William Jennings Bryan on the fifth ballot.

Champ Clark, the only Missourian to serve as Speaker of the House, was the leading candidate at the 1912 Democratic Convention. Although he was favored by a majority of delegates he never could get to the required two-thirds.  It took 46 ballots for the convention to choose Woodrow Wilson over him.

Young Christopher Bond was seen as a rising star in the Republican Party when the convention met in 1976 in Kansas City and was on a short-list of potential running mades for Gerald Ford. His 12,000 vote upset loss to Joseph Teasdale in November crashed dreams of the White House. But he beat Teasdale in a 1980 rematch and went on to a distinguished career as a United States Senator.

Thomas Eagleton sought the vice-presidency under George McGovern’s campaign. But reports that he had undergone some electro-shock treatments for depression ended is VP run a few weeks after the convention.

Congressman Jerry Litton was a charismatic candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1976 who died with his wife and two children and two other people when their airplane crashed on takeoff from the Chillicothe Airport on their way to a victory party in Kansas City.  Litton was known to think he was presidential material. Jimmy Carter, who was elected President that day, thought that Litton would be President some day.  The Senatorship went to John Danforth.  His top aide told me sometime afterwards that Danforth wasn’t sure he could have beaten Litton.  The what-if game can ponder whether we might have seen a Reagan-Litton contest or a Litton-Bush 41.

We haven’t had a serious contestant since, although there are rumors that Josh Hawley would like to be the running mate of Donald Trump in 2024.

Some presidents bring honor to the office. Others bring dishonor and all of them fall somewhere in between.  Today we honor those who served and the office they held.

It is one of the Monday holidays decreed by Congress in 1968. Although we call it Presidents Day, Congress has never changed its original designation:  Washington’s birthday.

-0-

We’ve Seen This Before 

Posted on by
Reply

It’s called the tyranny of the minority.

Watching Congressman Kevin McCarthy trying to appease an unwilling minority in his party so he could realize his dream of becoming Speaker of the House was agonizing last week.  But for those of us who follow Missouri politics it as not an unfamiliar experience.

Remember the 2021 legislative session when an ultra-conservative segment of Senate Republicans held the entire chamber hostage when they couldn’t get their way on a congressional redistricting map?  Day after day they refused to let any other business be done until they could get their way. On a few occasions the remaining Republicans got some support from minority Democrats to move something—a relationship that really steamed the tyrannical minority.

In Washington last week we watched Kevin McCarthy come about as close to making the Speakership a figurehead position in his effort to get enough of his hard right party members to let him have the job.

As the process wore on, we wondered if it occurred to McCarthy that he had to protect the Speakership, not just his own personal ambitions. Neutering the Speakership sews the seeds of anarchy in the House.

We saw in the Missouri Senate last year the dangers of deadlock caused by those who replaced public service with political power.  To see the same scenario played out on a national scale is disastrous for those who have some faith in our system.

McCarthy was finally picked on the 15th ballot when Congressman Matt Gaetz, who had proclaimed himself a never-Kevin vote switched to “present.”

So now the House of Representative can get down to business.  But the narrowness of the Republican majority and the divisions within the party are likely to prove hazardous to McCarthy’s House leadership.

And don’t forget that a favorite punching bag of the Republicans, President Biden, holds a veto pen and there appears to be zero chance that the House can get a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto, assuming it can get its legislation through the Senate and to the president’s desk..

The spectacle has not ended with McCarthy’s selection as Speaker.

Politics is an imperfect science but we never have seen such a time as when good will seems so unachievable.  Did any of us elect any of them to think that there is nothing more important than who sits in what office in one building in Washington, D.C.?

Today we mourn the (temporary, we hope) passing of the ideal of majority rule. A tyrannical minority can be put in its place if the two major factions would recognize they must create the majority—and in the creation of a bipartisan majority, return sanity to our system.

We still have the hope that somebody will be unafraid to scale the wall separating the parties and produce enough unity to overcome the tail that thinks it can wag the congressional dog.

The Speakership is more important than any individual that aspires for it. If protecting the office and its responsibility and its power means reaching across the partisan wall, let the reaching begin.  We need to know that the tyrannical minority is not in charge.

But frankly, we’re not sure it won’t be.

Do you know how to tell—

Posted on by
Reply

—if a politician is lying?

His lips are moving.

This old and cynical joke that cavalierly diminishes all of those who seek to serve honorably has found new circulation thanks to a New York congressional candidate who told lie after lie during his campaign, got elected, has grudgingly admitted to some of his lies, but is unrepentant and as of the writing of this entry plans to take the oath of office.

George Santos is a Republican and (so far) the leadership of his party has been pretty silent about his admissions and the additional lies uncovered by reporters. About the only thing that seems to be true about him is that he’s a Republican. For now, anyway.  If his clay feet, which have crumbled at least ankle-high, continue to crumble, he might be most appropriationly listed as (P-NY), for “Pariah” from New York.

“I am not a criminal,” he told The New York Post. “This will not deter me from having good legislative success. I will be effective. I will be good.”

Whether he is not a criminal is open to some question. Did his claims constitute fraud?  Did he lie to obtain campaign donations, thus defrauding donors?  Did his lies result in financial gain?  Did he lie on his campaign financial disclosure forms, a potential criminal act? And those are starter questions..

He claimed to be the grandchild of Ukrainian natives who escaped the holocaust by going to Belgium and then to Brazil. Investigators say he is not.  He’s a native Brazilian and there are shadows over his life there.

He claimed to be Jewish. He released a position paper during his campaign saying he was “a proud American Jew.”  That was then. Now he says he never claimed to be a Jew and that he’s Catholic who is “Jew-ish,” a comment that the word “outlandish” is inadequate to describe. He says his grandmother told him stories about being Jewish before she converted to Catholicism. His grandparents were born in Brazil.  The Democrat he beat in November says Santos’ lies about his Jewish background are more than offensive—“It’s sick and obscene,” he says.

In the campaign he claimed that he had been openly gay for more than a decade and is married to another man.  But another news organization has learned he was married to a woman that he divorced in 2019 and has found no record of his marriage to the man Santos says is his husband.

He claimed to have worked with two of the biggest names in the financial industry—Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, neither of which says his name ever appeared on their employee rolls. He says he probably could have used “a better choice of words” in making that claim.

He claimed to have attended New York University and to have graduated from Baruch College. Now he confesses, “I didn’t graduate from any institution of higher learning.” He says he is “embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume.” But he excused himself by commenting, “A lot of people overstate in their resumes or twist a little bit.”

Embellished his resume?  And it’s okay because “a lot of people” do it “a little bit?”

What he has done is more than “a little bit.”  He lied and now he’s lying about lying. In fact, he has created a waterfall of lies including how much property he does or does now own, and how many dogs his nonprofit dog rescue group rescued.

The silence of his party’s leadership, particularly his future colleagues in the United States House of Representatives is tragic in this time when distrust of those who seek public service or those who win positions of public service is so strong.  Santos tars all of them with his irresponsible campaign and his petulant responses to those who have exposed him for what he is—a man who was incapable of truth during his campaign and seems incapable of admitting the depth of his lies after his election.

Unfortunately, the public doesn’t see him as the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, the public has come to believe his kind IS the rule.

But I know from years of front-row coverage of politics and politicians that people of his kind are the rotten apple that spoils the barrel.

The Santoses of the political world damn the saints of the political world. It is up to those who will take office for the first time in 2023 to be the kind of people who eventually leave public life having uplifted public opinion about those who go from being “one of us” on election day to being “one of them.”  It will be a heavy lift.  Honor is a great weight.

Failure of his party, particularly those who will be leaders of his party colleagues in Washington, to censure—even expel—him will deepen mistrust in all of those in either party, further damaging our republic and furthering the aims of those who seek to capitalize on distrust in it to strengthen their hopes for control.

“Disgrace” is spelled S-A-N-T-O-S.