A REALLY Special Session

Our lawmakers are back in Jefferson City to help decide what kind of a country we will have, and what kind of country we will be. That’s a pretty strong observation. But if we are honest, it is also pretty strongly true.

Governor Kehoe has called them back because President Trump worries he won’t have continued absolute power for the last half of his term unless legislatures in various states take unprecedented action to change congressional district lines to eliminate Democrats.

Forget what the voters decided in the 2024 Congressional elections. Make sure some of them can’t have the representative they elected because a President who brags about his popularity is worried that, in truth, he is so unpopular in poll after poll that Americans might vote in 2026 to impede his seizure of absolute power.

The Missouri legislature wants to take Representative Emanuel Cleaver’s elected job away from him by splitting his district so about half of his biggest supporters can’t vote for him in 2026.

It is interesting that Republicans, who have so many chest-thumping evangelical Christians supporting them, want to eliminate a member of Congress who is a Christian minister. Perhaps Emanuel Cleaver isn’t Christian enough. Perhaps they think he is spiritually lost or spiritually bankrupt because he’s a Methodist, a mainline Christian group that has split in a dispute about whether God creates gays.

Wouldn’t you think that a president who peddles Bibles, poses holding a Bible in front of a D. C. church, and says in commercials that he has several Bibles and it’s his favorite book would want someone like Congressman Cleaver in Washington as a moral force?

That’s Trump’s problem. He is not a moral force himself. In fact, there are plenty who wonder if he has any morals at all.

Donald Trump, who is so scared of losing power that he will disrupt the entire system of picking a representative government, wants the legislature to just turn over the keys to the democratic process in Missouri to him.

He talks about American exceptionalism but cares not for the government system that gives us that distinction and he will do anything to make sure his power goes unchecked for as long as he and his political offspring can keep it.

Have the people of Missouri asked for this change in who represents them?

No.  There has been no public outcry that our congressional delegation has betrayed the people who elected it. But those we have chosen to represent us at the state level are facing a demand that the legislature go against its own public’s wishes so Missouri can help keep a man in power who day after day advances policies that are antithetical to a heritage that millions have lived and died to defend and to perfect.

Now we have the spectacle of our chosen state representatives and our chosen state senators meeting to undermine our representatives in the national government that we voted to support less than one year ago, and in the process throw out a Black Methodist minister who has served our state with great honor and decency in Washington since January 3, 2005, a man dedicated to public service in the pulpit as well as in the places of power—a dozen years on the city council in our largest city, eight years as its mayor, and more than two decades representing Christian values and his district’s needs.

He rightfully threatens to fight this ill-conceived realignment in court: “It will render people in Kansas City essentially silent and powerless,” Cleaver said. “The reason I’m saying this is Kansas City is roughly 70-something percent Democratic. If you tear Kansas City apart — put one portion of the Kansas City area in one district, the other in another — the chances are they have no representation.”

He is correct although today’s majority party does not seem to care.

What hammer does Donald Trump hold over our lawmakers that makes them so craven in doing his bidding? It’s a big one. It’s the power to withhold or even take back the billions of dollars in federal funding that underwrite about half of the state budget.

It is awfully hard to look down the barrel of that gun and not wilt. Trump wants no defiance from Missouri and from other Republican states. He and those who are pulling his strings daily prove they care not one whit for most of us but expects our voices in government at state and federal levels to say only two words: “Yes, sir.”

Some key questions emerge: Is there time to make all of this happen?  Can opponents drag out the special session before the bill passes and the court battles begin and how long will that process take before it clears state courts and goes through the federal court system, which will take even more time?

When will filing for these offices begin if this issue is tied up in courts?  Candidates cannot file in districts that will not legally exist until the courts rule which map will be THE map. When will primary elections be held, ditto? When will lawsuits challenging the results begin and be processed? Will the court fights be  done  before time for a November election?

This is going to be a long and ugly process that will do nothing to improves public confidence in Missouri’s, and the nation’s, government.

One man wants to take away one of our members of Congress with a new map THAT IS UNLIKELY TO BE PUT OUT FOR VOTER APROVAL before an election is held specifically to oust a congressman who has been elected eleven times by people in a district that Trump wants the Missouri legislature to destroy.

Here is the final question:

How much does the Missouri General Assembly want to disgrace itself for a man who has been considered by almost 150 of the nation’s most distinguished historians one of the worst presidents in history—-eve before he started swinging a sledgehammer in his second term.

Despite the words of a long-ago popular song, Freedom IS a word for everything to lose.

Our legislators will tell us at the end of this special session if they think it is, as the song also says, “just another word.”

Petting the buffalo, feeding the bears

The first time we visited Yellowstone National Park, we noticed a line of vehicles parked on the shoulder of the road. That can only mean there’s an animal, or animals, in the neighborhood.

We pulled in behind a pickup truck where two baby bears were on their hind legs and being fed apple slices from a slightly lowered driver’s side window.  While the driver fed the cubs, the passenger got out with his camera and came around to the left front fender and took pictures.

In a few minutes, the pickup truck pulled away and the baby bears came our way. When they stood up their noses reached the bottom of our car’s windows and when they got no satisfaction on my side, they went around to Nancy’s side. Eventually, we realized our doors were not locked and hastily locked them.

We never saw Mama Bear until she lumbered up out of the woods, and stood up and put her front feet ON THE ROOF of our car.  I still have the photograph I took looking out my window at a big brown bear chest and its white stripe.

She didn’t shake the car or anything, just stood there for a little bit before going back into the woods with the kids.

We quickly observed how lucky was the clown with the camera taking pictures at the pickup truck that Mama Bear didn’t come out then. They move awfully fsst, these bears, perhaps faster than a guy who might not have sensed her rush out of the woods until the last second and couldn’t get back into that truck.

Some tourists do some incredibly dumb things in Yellowstone. More often these days we hear about some idiot who decides to pet that nice buffalo and realizes much too late that Yellowstone is many things but it’s not a petting zoo.

So it is that we wonder if Donald Trump’s demands that congressional districts can be redrawn to protect him and his disastrous reign might not be a case of feeding bears and petting a buffalo.

Redrawing the districts just might urinarily agitate not only Democrats, but also be the final straw for some of his Republicans and—most important—quiet independents, who could be the Mama Bears and the intolerant buffalo in those district elections. In this political climate, sure-things are not necessarily sure.

The polls have indicated some softening of R voters who might not vote or—for this election only—hold their noses and vote for a Democrat. Republicans, as is true with all other voting blocs, do not lack independent thought and might decide this is a time to really stop the steal.

The biggest bloc that could come into play are the outright independents who might have found Trump marginally less objectionable than Harris last year but this year might see redistricting as the straw-breaking issue for them, too.

If Donald Trump really was confident in his domestic and foreign policies, he wouldn’t be pulling this stunt.  But he isn’t, so he’s unthinkingly feeding bears and trying to pet a buffalo.

The 19th century English poet William Cosgrove Monkhouse, wrote an appropriate limerick for this occasion—although it involves an animal not found in Yellowstone National Park:

There was a young lady of Niger

Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;

They returned from the ride

With the lady inside,

And the smile on the face of the tiger

Independents, disaffected Republicans, and angry motivated Democrats could combine to make a huge Tiger in 2026. Trumpists might want to consider carefully how much they want to use their twigs to poke it through the bars. Creatures such as bears, buffalo, and Tigers seem docile enough.

Until……

 

Sometimes—-

I wish I was a reporter again. God! I used to love to ask important people, “What the Hell do you think you’re doing?” although I didn’t use those words. The point of the questions was the same.  I loved those moments, as good reporters do.  It’s what we are there for, actually.

Bloomberg News has quoted the leader of the Missouri Senate saying President Trump wants our congressional districts redrawn “to be sure Missouri’s representation matches Missouri’s Christian conservative majority.”

If I were still a reporter, I would have several questions. .

What are the values of a “Christian conservative majority” that are lacking in any of our present congressional districts—or members of Congress?  Is it just a matter of Democrats serving from two of those districts?  Does the election of Democrats indicate a majority of the people in a district lack Christian values, particularly “Christian conservative” values?

Given that our two Democratic controlled districts are centered in our biggest cities, is she suggesting St. Louis and Kansas City are to some degree not Christian?

Are these congressional districts that are not conservative Christian Muslim?  Shintoists? Buddhists? Sikhs?  Atheists?  One of the Congressmen is a Methodist Minister. Is he not Christian enough?  He’s the one in the crosshairs. How about Methodists generally?  The denomination has split recently. Which side is most Christian?

How does the Trump administration reflect the Christian values of being our brother’s keeper, of being the Good Samaritans, of helping the poor, of healing the sick? How does President Trump fit into that description of Christianity?

How is ICE and its behaviors a reflection of “Christian conservative values?”

How does she square Paul’s letter to the Galatians that proclaims, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

—Or even how well the leader of our government fits the admonition from the Old Testament Prophet Micah:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

It seems from here that there are shortages in the justice and mercy categories. And humility is not a word in the Bible he’s peddling.

One of the joys of being a reporter is being curious about things and having access to people who can discuss answers to that curiosity.

I was away from the Capitol for about five years after I left my life in the newsroom and when I went back to the Capitol to try to convince the legislature to do things the casino industry won’t let it do, I realized how much I missed the intellectual give-and-take of the place. A reporter’s job is to question and questions by reporters should not be automatically interpreted as hostile as often as they are, especially today when some political skin seems horribly thin.

How can we understand the religious attitudes that are dividing us if we refuse to ask or refuse to answer questions that test what we believe. And how Christian is it to claim that there is no room for different interpretations whether they are personal, denominational, social, or political?

Religion is an especially touchy subject these days when it has become a political tool or weapon. I struggle to accept those who think differing views make someone less Christian.

As I have often remarked, “Nothing screws up faith more than religion.”

I’d like to know what religion has to do with congressional redistricting.  I doubt that Donald Trump has made that one of his reasons for trying to gerrymander-rig the 2026 elections.

Apparently, six Christian districts and two heathen districts isn’t good enough.  We’ll be watching how legislators suddenly take a heathen area and with a few strokes of their genuine Donald J. Trump Sharpie, legislators will turn a heathen part of the state into a Christian one.

I’m pretty sure that is not something James Madison and his fellow creators anticipated when they wrote the Constitution. And I’m also pretty sure the court system has never ruled that congressional districts must be drawn intentionally to reflect Christian values.

I’m just an observer now. But, man oh man, there are times when I wish I could walk up to someone who thinks they’re important and ask things like this.

One Christian to another.

 

Be Careful What You Wish For 

It’s an old idiom with several variations but it has a currency in today’s politics as some states are hopping to President Trump’s demands to redraw congressional districts so a cooperative Republican majority will not offer any checks or balances to his policies throughout the rest of his term.

Republican friends, you would be well-advised to tread carefully into this Trumpswamp.

We have witnessed numerous lawsuits stemming from the seven redistrictings we have covered or observed. The authors of the realigned districts always deny they have gerrymandered districts either to protect an incumbent or to oust an incumbent the majority party wants to target.

But this is different. The President has specifically asked legislatures to gerrymander districts to make sure more Republicans are elected to the U. S. House in 2026. He has a small and shrinking majority there now and he is seeing some ferment within his MAGAites and his response is not to correct any of his own behaviors but to ask state legislatures to make sure he doesn’t have to.

Some leaders of the Missouri legislature would not be surprised if Governor Kehoe calls a special session to redraw our congressional districts to oust one of our two Democrat members of the House, in this case the Rev. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City, one of our senior congressmen.

They tried to do that once before, putting him in what I called a “dead lizard” district (because its outline looked like a dead lizard, lying on its back with its feet up) that stretched as far east as Marshall, thus putting more rural conservative voters in play. But the legislature made a mistake by letting him keep too many of his Kansas City constituents and he won anyway.  It is unlikely the legislature will make that same mistake this time.

In the past, legislators accused in lawsuits of gerrymandering denied doing so intentionally, forcing critics to prove their defenses untrue.  This time, however, there will be no denying intentional gerrymandering; the President has ordered it.

It will be blatantly intentional, therefore harder to defend.

There are other issues in play, too. They must consider whether they are enacting a boomerang.

First, there is the question of the population basis for the new plan. Trump wants a new census that can be used in apportionment. That’s a reason to delay redrawing the lines. His desire to exclude some people in that census will draw lawsuits. More delay.

Why, therefore, the rush?  No census. No determination of the census’s legality. How can the numbers used to calculate new districts be accurate without that census and the determination of its constitutionality?

Whether the districts will exist a year from now, in the 2026 election cycle, depends on the court attacks on the plan—and there will be attacks. The timing of the challenges, the hearings, the appeals, the appeals hearings, the rulings and the appeals to an even higher level will chew up a lot of time.  The legislature can approve the plan. But whether it will withstand vigorous court challenges on numerous fronts from the accuracy of population numbers as well as the overt partisanship behind it is uncertain. Whether opponents can run out the clock on the plan also is uncertain.

It also is possible that Trump’s continued misadventures politically, legislatively, socially, and judicially will have further inflamed his existing and his new critics by election time in ’26 and voters will take it out on Republicans generally and the Republican running to oust an incumbent Democrat in particular.

If this plan goes into effect, Democrats can launch numerous attacks and use it to put forward attractive candidates than will have a significant ready-made issue to make a strong run at Republicans. It could backfire.  Some concerns already are being heard in the GOP ranks.

Sometimes it is better to let incumbent dogs lie (read that how you prefer) than it is to stir up a public that is capable of switching to the other party on election day. Experience shows that the public is a fickle creature.

It’s a risk/reward situation for Republicans no matter how they cut it. They should consider the potential hazards of getting what they wish for because they easily could get what they don’t desire, especially if Trump continues in the next year to alienate his base and Americans generally with his Big Ugly Bill and subsequent actions and legal problems.

Present trends seem to indicate his behavior is doing potentially prospective Republican candidates no service, something incumbents might consider as they ponder their own futures. Is he worth the risk in which they might be placing themselves?  And if they decide he isn’t, will they have the courage to stand up?

Rigging the Election

A normally sane person might think that a person who has claimed a rigged election is wrong would be reluctant to try to rig one himself.

But we are living in Trumpworld.

President Trump wants red states such as Missouri to adjust their congressional districts so more Republicans might be elected next year. A president’s party historically loses congressional seats in midterm elections and Trump and his party don’t have any seats he can spare.).

Texas Republicans have jumped at the opportunity to make the master happy although the GOP already dominates the state’s delegation in the U. S. House of Representatives 27-12.  That’s not good enough for Trump. The effort has led to a confrontation with their Democratic colleagues that has become, our mind at least, a national embarrassment for Texas politics and politicians.

What’s going on here?  Trump is scared.  Of what?  National Review correspondent Audrey Fahlberg said recently on CNN, “The White House is driving this because clearly they are worried about losing the midterms.  They’re convinced that if House Democrats flip the House, that Trump is going to get impeached again…The ‘big beautiful bill’ is not polling super well right now, so they’re going on offense here. They’re driving this into motion in Texas. They’re looking at other states, as well. We may see this continue in states like Florida, Indiana.”

And Missouri appears likely to get into this, too. Republicans have six of our eight House seats but apparently that’s not enough. Senate leader Cindy O’Laughlin has told the Missouri Independent that it is “likely” the governor will call a special session to redraw lines so Republicans would be likely to take away the seat held by one of our senior members, the Reverend Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. He’s one of two Missouri African-Americans in our congressional delegation.

Missouri is not out of whack in the D/R balance of our congressional districts.  Last year, President Trump got 58 percent of the popular vote in Missouri. Kamala Harris and minor candidates got 42 percent.  A 6-2 congressional breakdown fits those results.

The Missouri legislature is more than 2-1 Republican so a walkout by Democrats similar to the Texas walkout wouldn’t stop the GOP from aiding and abetting Trump’s need to have a pliant Congress. The Missouri House Minority Leader, Ashley Aune of Kansas City, has told the Independent, “Everyone I’ve talked to, especially on my side of the aisle, expects to go down and get steamrolled…during a special session.”

In about a month, legislators will reconvene to consider overriding any vetoes dispensed by Governor Kehoe after the regular session and a special  session could meet concurrently with that veto session. It’s been done a few times before.

We can anticipate one of the arguments opponents will make. Our state constitution’s Article III, Section 45 says:

 When the number of representatives to which the state is entitled in the House of the Congress of the United States under the census of 1950 and each census thereafter is certified to the governor, the general assembly shall by law divide the state into districts corresponding with the number of representatives to which it is entitled, which districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.

The average citizen is likely to think this language is clear—the state constitution provides for redistricting after each census but has no authorization for redistricting midway through a census decade. The language about “contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be” has been used from time to time to challenge redistricting plans that critics think wander too far from “contiguous” and “compact.”

Missouri has revised congressional district maps after the decennial census is taken beginning, as noted in the language, after the 1950 census. The only time the legislature redistricted between census counts was in the 1960s with a case that went to the United States Supreme Court that ruled against a redistricting map. A key part of the ruling said:

Missouri contends that variances were necessary to avoid fragmenting areas with distinct economic and social interests and thereby diluting the effective representation of those interests in Congress. But to accept population variances, large or small, in order to create districts with specific interest orientations is antithetical to the basic premise of the constitutional command to provide equal representation for equal numbers of people. “[N]either history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes.”

If we understand Trump’s demands, he wants the Missouri legislature to create “districts with specific interest orientations.” The U. S. Supreme Court is much different than it was in the sixties so we’ll have to see if this precedent carries any weight with today’s Trump-dominated court.

Not all Missouri Republicans are in lock step with Trump. One is Senator Mike Moon of Ash Grove, a member of the so-called Freedom Caucus, a minority group within the Republican Party that took control of the chamber and blocked action on hundreds of bills in the last three years. Another is the Speaker Pro Tem of the House, Chad Perkins of Bowling Green who worries that “a 7-1 map is easily a 5-3 map in a year that doesn’t go the way that conservatives want it to go.”

Perkins also makes the point that Democrats should not moan and wail too loudly about Republican attempts to hold their advantage by changing districts in the middle of a decade because the Democrats in Illinois and California are doing the same thing to gain an advantage to offset any pick-ups Trump might make in other states.

The latest wrinkle in the planned rigging is Trump’s order for his Commerce Department to run a new census that does not include undocumented immigrants, the U. S. Constitution notwithstanding.

Article I, Section 2 does not seem to allow what Trump demands, at least for your observer’s untutored reading.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 

The Constitution recognizes the census taken every ten years as the only legitimate census. By including “the whole number of free persons,” it does not exempt immigrants, which at the time the Constitution was written was a considerable number. Indians were not counted (although they were probably the freest people in the nation’s history until the Europeans showed up). Slaves WERE counted but since they were not free they were considered only three-fifths of a person—a provision the southern states demanded so representation would be balanced with states in the north.

And the article says the only census that will be constitutionally recognized is the one done every ten years.

Trump’s order is not helpful to his demand that new congressional districts be drawn. Right now. The first part of Amendment 1, section 2 says the districts will be drawn based on census figures.  The census has to come first, then the districts, a constitutional provision that seems to say Texas is jumping the gun and Missouri would be doing the same. Doing a census the way Trump wants it done could be pretty difficult and time consuming because a lot of Latino people whether here legally or illegally are making themselves as scarce as possible.

To coin a phrase, Trump seems to be engaged in unconstitutional bundling.

Trump’s political cynicism does nothing to reduce the general public’s distrust of our political system. In fact, he has played upon it to get elected.

Politics sometimes has been a mud-and-blood-and beer wrestling match although not as untrustworthy as many see it today. Some observers have suggested this state of decline began with Ronald Reagan’s inaugural remark 44 years ago that, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.”

Reagan had it right but he sure didn’t foresee the much different way the statement is true today.

The central issue in this frantic competition to diminish a minority within a state’s congressional delegation is this:

We have a President and a GOP House and Senate that recognize their statements and their actions are counter to the public’s increasingly self-recognized best interests. They are uncertain that the public, if given the chance, will let them keep doing to the country and its people the things they are doing.

Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress had the answer many of today’s  politicians want to ignore:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read that last sentence again.  When a despotic government becomes destructive of the inalienable rights of citizens like you and me, WE have the RESPONSIBILITY to resist and to form a new government that provides for our “future security.” The Trump bunch is afraid the people might want to do that now that the see that Trump was less than honest (to put it mildly) in his campaign.

Too many in today’s politics care less about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than they care about power, especially power that can be abused to benefit the few by harming the many. Re-drawing congressional district lines by those focused on power more than on the government our forefathers imagined helps assure that the people have reduced chances for benefitting from their inalienable rights.

There is an odor of desperation in the air on the part of those who believe in power above service as they see public sentiment for them weaken.

The redistricting game is being played by people who have come to believe they cannot win if they do not rig next year’s elections for Congress—-and they’re flouting their ambitions right before our eyes when they consider a mid-term re-drawing of congressional district lines based on ignoring counting “the whole people” to protect a President who now seems far less confident in his future than he did six months ago.

They might be imperiling themselves if they proceed, these legislators, as we will discuss in our next entry.

Christopher Kit

The first governor the Missourinet covered was Christopher S. Bond. We went on the air January 2, 1975 with a welcome by Bond in one of our first newscasts.

Today, I will be helping Columbia television station KMIZ telecast and webcast his memorial service from the rotunda of the Capitol where he served for ten years, two years as state auditor and eight years as governor.  The Capitol is less than an hour’s drive from Mexico, his hometown.

The memorial service will be at non today, after which he will lie in state until mid-day tomorrow. A celebration of his life will take place Thursday at Ladue Chapel Presbyterian Church in St. Louis.

He called himself “Kit,” and signed all of his letters that way.  But I never called him that. I think “Kit” is okay for a child but not for somebody who earned the prestigious titles of governor and senator. A grownup, especially a governor or a senator, should be Christopher. I’ll let a frontiersman from two centuries ago get away with it, but it’s just not dignified when applied to a Governor. Or a Senator and, once upon a time, in a time far, far away, a potential candidate for vice-president.

THIS is Kit:

Kit is about forty years old and it’s the time of year for it to go live outside for the summer.  We bring it indoors when the weather starts to turn a little crisp and park it next to a window so it can view winter, as we do, from the warmth of the house.

This is  Christopher.

That’s fifty years ago, after he had helped me get the American Freedom Train to come through Jefferson City for the American Revolution Bicentennial. I was the local committee Secretary and Carolyn McDowell was the committee chairman.  My friend, Jim Wisch, who also helped me build a grandfather clock from a kit (I’m sorry, it’s unavoidable in telling the story), did the woodwork for the plaque with the locomotive on it.

Some people have asked me to talk about Christopher Bond and I’ve talked about some of his legislative successes, his actions overturning a 140-year old extermination order by one of his predecessors telling Mormons to get out of Missouri or he would have the state militia kill them, his work on realigning government, his work ethic, and other things.  But I overlooked one of his best accomplishments. Alan Greenblatt, the editor of Governing magazine brought it up after learning of Bond’s death. He headlined it “When a Governor Preserved Part of His State’s Heritage.

With his reminding me, I recalled it well. Half a century ago, the St. Louis Mercantile Library decided to pay for a new air conditioning system by selling more than 100 drawings by Missouri’s most famous 19th Century artist, George Caleb Bingham.  Bingham’s works are universally appreciated not only as art but also because of the historical stories they tell. The drawings are of people who appear in one of his most famous works—County Election.

Bond mobilized school children to donate their dimes and pennies to help the state buy the drawings.  Any school that raised $250 got a Bingham print. More than three-hundred schools took part and their children raised about $40,000.

The children inspired adults, businesses, and the legislature to put up the rest of the money,  more than two-million dollars, to make the purchase.

The drawings, now in a trust, are protected from being sold.

Greenblatt concludes, “After I learned about Bond’s intervention… it became a habit for me to ask governors and former governors if they had ever done something similar — something that wasn’t part of their larger political agenda but something that had an impact they could talk about with their grandchildren. None have yet given me a satisfactory answer. So kudos to Kit Bond, as he was known, for using his bully pulpit in this particular way.”

I first met him when he was running against incumbent Congressman Bill Hungate, one of the stars of the Watergate hearings, in northeast Missouri.  He came to the radio station where I was in my first year as news director, the late KLIK, and we sat on a couch in the front office and talked about why he thought he was qualified to go to Congress. He lost but he gave Hungate a stronger run than he had ever faced.

That was 1968, the year John Danforth broke Democratic control of state politics. He hired a bunch of young assistants, Christopher Bond being one of them.  The list of people who came through the “Danforth Incubator” includes future governors, judges of the state supreme court, federal prosecutors, Republican Party leaders, and a couple of future governors—Bond and John Ashcroft.

Before Bond became governor he had to prove he was a Missourian. His primary opponent, Representative R. J. “Bus” King, charged Bond would not have lived in Missouri for the required ten years before the election.  He had gone to law school in Virginia, clerked for a federal judge in Georgia, worked for a law firm in Washington, D.C., applied for a marriage license in Kentucky and lived in DC after his marriage.

Bond argued all of those addresses were temporary and were connected to his education and his professional development. But, he said, he never intended to abandon his Missouri residence. The court ruled that “residence” is “largely a matter of intention” not requiring a physical presence. Therefore residence was “that place where a man has his true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.”

Bond became the youngest governor in Missouri history in January, 1973. Some of the old guard, even in his own party, treated him with some disdain, some even referring to his as ‘Kid” Bond.

1972 also was the year Missourians approved a realignment of state government. Our youngest governor’s first big job was a complete reordering of the hundreds of state agencies, boards, and commissions into a little more than a dozen departments.

When a tornado hit Farmington in ’74, Bond and some members of the Capitol Press Corps hopped on a National Guard helicopter and flew over to check the damage. Bond and the press corps got along pretty well but on this flight there was no collegial chit-chat. Bond had his briefcase and was working on things all the way over and all the way back, a work ethic I appreciated.

By re-election time, Bond had won the respect of the old guard and was such a rising star in the party, nationally, that President Ford had Bond on the short list as a running mate. But when Joe Teasdale ran a populist campaign that Bond never seriously challenged, Teasdale emerged a surprise winner by about 13,000 votes.  The stunning defeat ended his hopes of rising to national importance.

I remember hearing him talk about how his loss not only was difficult for him, it was doubly difficult for his wife.  While he was mourning the end of his dreams, she was dealing with the loss of HER dream. And she had to deal with the end of his national ambitions, too.  It’s a lesson I’ve told other potential first-time candidates to think about—-that they don’t run for office alone; that their family is running, too, and is living all of the joys and sadnesses the campaign produces.

Bond filled his time as the head of the Great Plains Legal Foundation while working to rebuild the Republican Party. He came out slugging in the 1980 campaign and clobbered Teasdale by about ten times more votes than was the losing margin to Teasdale in ’72.

He laid out for a couple of years then ran for the U. S. Senate and won the first of his four six-year terms.

When he retired from the Senate fifteen years ago, he said,

“There is no greater honor than being given the people’s trust, to represent them. I have done my best to keep faith with my constituents in every vote I have cast and every issue I have worked on.

“As I look back, the successes we have achieved during my time here have always come because people were willing to reach across the aisle for the common good…

“In a world today where enemies are real—the kind who seek to destroy others because of their religion—it is important to remember there is a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy.

“Public Service has been a blessing and a labor of love for me. Little in life could be more fulfilling.”

Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri was known for his pork-barrel politics, the politics of getting as much federal money for his state as possible.  While some think being “The King of Pork” is not a distinction, Bond was proud of the title—-because it was done for his folks back home.

I saw him occasionally in the years since (such as at the Greitens Inauguration in 2017).  Age shortened his height but not his public stature. He  always had the smile, always the twinkle in the eye, always was glad to see someone, always ready with a quip.

He was 86 when he died last week.

One final story—about Kit.

In those days the press corps was made up of a lot of young men and women.  We had our softball teams and our basketball teams. One day the press corps played a game against Governor Bond and his staff.  The press corps won.  I hit a shot that nailed the governor in the shin at third base.

In May of 1984,  my city league softball team played the governor’s staff and I had to leave my position at third base to fill in for an absent pitcher.  Early in the game, one of the governor’s staff hit a shot straight back at me. It hit me in the left eye and I was in the hospital for a few days after doctors stitched the eye and the surrounding area back together.  On day a nurse brought a nice plant to my bedside. She and the other nurses were really impressed that the governor would send a plant to one of their patients.

We call the plant Kit.  And it will always remind me of a guy named Christopher.

(photo credits: Kit—Bob Priddy; County Election—Art.com; Old Bond—UPI; Official portrait of Bond—Bob Priddy)

 

The Meaning of a Wisconsin Election

When a people choose vindictive self-service over broader public concern, they make an eventually correctible mistake.

When Congress replaces responsibility for the many with loyalty to one, a nation is in trouble.

When courts replace justice with ideology, a nation might be lost.

We live in and often must endure our own humanness. But there are protections that we must trust within our political system that keep our mistake from becoming our destruction.

This is such a time.

The current administration has attacked the courts and the “unelected judges” who are overturning unconstitutional executive orders, preferring that the court system get out of the way. We can be grateful that our founders made the court a road block to injustice.

Elected? The dangers of an elected judiciary were on plain view in Wisconsin a few days ago where an effort was made to buy a seat on the state supreme court for someone designated as a Trump supporter who would tilt the court majority politically toward Trump.

It has become obvious to many within the last few days that they were mistaken when they accepted without question the promises given last year by Donald Trump.  Now, they must place their hope with a Congress in which some are beginning to question their loyalty to him and wonder if they have the courage to remember their responsibility.

In the end, though, it is the courts that have the ultimate responsibility for saving our nation.

The courts cannot completely nor immediately reverse the course set by the mistake. But the courts are our ultimate and final refuge—

—-which is why the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election was so critical, not just for Wisconsin, but for all of us; not just because of WHO was elected but because of WHAT was rejected.

History has shown liberal or conservative-tilting courts are not always as clearly divided as the labels we attach to their individual members seem to indicate they will be. There is a middle ground that often is the resting place for compromise on carefully designed decisions. And it is that middle ground on the finest points of a case that might produce no major progress but will save us from any major regression.

Missouri originated a system that avoids the fight we recently saw in Wisconsin that featured a concerted effort to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. It is regrettable that we still allow people to try to buy part of our state constitution by financing multi-million dollar petition campaigns (last year’s sports wagering campaign in which the casino industry spent more than $40 million to get 3,000 more people to vote for sports wagering than voted against it after a misleading campaign is an example) and they can bankroll candidates for the legislature in an effort to buy laws.

But because our highest court judges are not elected, they cannot be bought.

Chief Justice Laura Denvir Smith, who also was the Chair of the Appellate Judicial Commission, told the Missouri Senate Rules Committee in 2007:

Judges are not intended to be politicians, choosing sides based on political considerations, or what the judge’s neighbors, fundraisers or special interest groups might think was best.  Deciding cases based on the judge’s or another’s perception of what is popular or politically expedient is inconsistent with one’s duty as a judge and is just plain wrong.  

The judicial branch of our democracy instead must be neutral, seeing that the laws are applied fairly, and providing stability in the law so that there is consistency in the rules by which people live their lives.  Although some court decisions are not popular, popularity is not the benchmark of quality in the judicial branch: The nature of our business is such that half the people are unhappy because they lost and some of the ones who won are unhappy because they don’t think they won enough.  

In every case, from a marital dissolution that only affects the couple and their children to an issue of constitutional validity, the role of the judicial branch is to resolve disputes neutrally and fairly based on the facts that are presented in court.  If they are doing their job correctly, judges decide based on the law and the facts, not based on the possible political ramifications of different results.

Sometimes the public, the parties and even the judges deciding a case are unhappy with its outcome, because the law may not produce a result that accords with our personal preferences. But if you ask those same people, when they have a case in court, whether they want a judge to pre-decide it based on the judge’s views of what will look good in the newspaper the next day, or, instead, whether they want a judge who will come to court with an open mind, listen to their side of the case, and reach a fair decision – they will pick the open mind and the fair decision – every time.

No one wants to worry that the case will be decided against them because the other side, or the other side’s lawyer, gave a large contribution to the judge’s election campaign, or to those politicians who appointed or nominated the judge for office.  Missourians learned long ago, before they adopted the nonpartisan plan, that is exactly what can and does happen when politics becomes a key factor in determining who will be a judge.

Missouri was the first state to adopt a non-partisan judicial selection process somce adopted by a majority of the states, although some states have added their own tweaks.

Although we adopted our plan in 1940 in an effort to take as much politics as possible out of the judicial selection process, the issue goes back to our first Constitution that was written in 1820 and had to be accepted by Congress before Missouri was allowed to become the 24th state.

That Constitution had the governor nominating judges at all levels and if the senate gave its consent to his nomination, the judges cold serve until they were 65 as long as they engaged in “good behavior.” But if the legislature found a judge having badly, it could by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber, ask the governor to remove a judge.

In the next couple of decades, though, Missourians began to doubt the wisdom of that latter point because it made the courts subservient to legislative politics and legislators were too influenced by special interests. Missouri became one of the states that decided the answer was judicial elections, legalized here in 1850.

By the start of the Twentieth Century and the machine politics of the time—the Pendergast family’s control of Democrat politics in its home town of Kansas City and in much of Missouri and the Butler machine in St. Louis, for example—the public became concerned that the judiciary’s independence was in doubt.

Beginning in 1903, when four state senators were indicted for taking bribes to vote on legislation specifying ingredients for Missouri-made baking powder and the supreme court overturned the first conviction and sentence and the other three cases never went to trial, there was suspicion that the supreme court had its own “boodle” scandal.

The Pendergast grip on Democratic politics statewide in the 1930s led to a push for adoption of a nonpartisan court plan known as “merit selection.” It was part of a national movement aimed at assuring our courts would be a true third branch of government.

When the legislature refused to hold an election on the proposal, an initiative petition forced a vote—and Missouri voters bought the idea in November, 1940.  When the legislature put a repeal of the plan on the 1942 ballot, voters strongly rejected it.

When our present state constitution was adopted in 1945, the plan was not touched.

The plan was limited to judges of the Missouri Supreme Court and courts of appeals. It also applied to some lower courts, including the probate courts, in the city of St. Louis and Jackson County. Other counties were given the option of adopting the plan.  But only six of our circuit courts have been put under the non-partisan plan, recognized nationally as The Missouri Plan.

Here is how it works:

A nonpartisan judicial commission, the Appellate Judicial Commission, solicits applications, interviews candidates and picks three finalists. The commission has three citizens appointed by the governor, three lawyers appointed by the Missouri Bar, with the chair being the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The commission picks three finalists whose names are made public, and the governor makes the final choice.

When a vacancy occurs, the commission seeks applicants and encourages the public to nominate well-qualified candidates for consideration. The commission reviews the applications of lawyers who wish to join the court and selects which applicants it will interview, then conducts those interviews in public. The commission then deliberates in a closed meeting to select a panel of three nominees for the governor’s consideration.

The governor has sixty days to announce his choice. If the governor fails to make a pick, the commission re-convenes and fills the vacancy. That has never been necessary.

The new judges then serve at least a year but then have to stand for retention in a statewide vote. The vote does not involve opposing candidates. It only asks citizens if the judge should be kept in office. There is no campaigning although the Missouri Bar’s Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee (made up of lawyers and non-lawyers) gives voters information about each of the judges up for retention so informed votes can be cast.

Although all counties can adopt this procedure, only a few use it. Only six jurisdictions do evaluations and hold non-partisan circuit judge elections—St. Louis city and county, Clay, Jackson, and Platte Counties in the Kansas City metro area, and Greene County (the Springfield area).

The plan is recognized as one that keeps politics out of judicial selection as much as possible. Unlike the federal system in which a President can reward friendly lawyers with juicy judicial appointments, this plan creates a process that sends up three people whose qualifications are based n their understanding of the law and the proper administration of it. There is no Senate approval of nominees, which would run the risk of politics being a major part of the process.

It does not keep those who want to degrade the legal system for their own protection or benefit from complaining about “unelected activist judges.”  But, having learned how it operates, this system might make it clear that some of the current attacks on the judiciary have no grounds, at least not here and not in our appellate court system.

The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan is the greatest protection we have against those who want to replace justice with ideology.

 

Spineless

So they don’t want people such as you and me to tell them face to face what their apparent saint in the White House is doing to the country with no apparent regard for who among us is hurt by his actions.

A few days ago, Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina suggested his fellow Republicans avoid holding in-person town hall meetings after some constituents unloaded on some of his colleagues when they did hold one.  One video showed one of those who represents folks like us fleeing from the stage because he couldn’t stand the heat.

Hudson is the Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He charged, without offering any proof that we have heard, that the town halls are being hijacked by Democratic activists, which seems to imply that there are no Republicans who have been moved to activism because all Republicans think the big guy is doing such wonderful things .

Funny, isn’t it?—that whenever people take to streets with pitchforks that it’s never the local folks who are causing the ruckus. It’s those lousy activists from the other party or other side of an issue who have driven for several hours just to be nasty to those poor elected representatives.

Some of those encouraging our representatives not to talk to us say those troublesome outside agitators are being paid!  How interesting that the Congresspeople seem to think nobody from their districts wants to put in their two cents worth about the events in Washington and wants a chance to be heard without buying anything, or anybody. It’s those well-paid troublemakers from somewhere else. Surely, the home folks wouldn’t be that worked up.

So they flee, shouting “outside agitators” over their shoulders.

There are two words that are not spoken as frequently as they should be to our political leaders at all levels who make such claims: “Prove it.”

Here in Jefferson City, it’s not much of a problem.  I can’t remember the last time our Congressman even showed a face around here, let alone had the mistaken impression that constituents might not be thankful for the voting record of their representative and what is being done to them. The one time I dropped by our most recent Congressman’s office, I found the door locked and when someone opened it, the attitude seemed to be “Who do you think you are?”

But elsewhere? Activists from the minority party are coming out of the woodwork and they’re not all outside or paid. But if even one insider in the district is asking questions, the Representative for that person should feel obligated to answer. Refusing to do so makes the Representative who lacks the courage to question anything his exalted leader is saying or doing uncomfortable. And what about the good unpaid people of the majority party? Would they never think to complain?

Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee claimed, “It’s pretty clear that they’ve got professional instigators, people that are showing up that are not even constituents,. And it’s getting dangerous. They’re going to people’s houses, they’re putting notices out, where do they live, where do they go to church, where do they eat — they did that on me. That kind of activity … breeds a very dangerous situation for families.”

Nobody in the White House is creating “a very dangerous situation for families”?

Speaking truth to power isn’t welcomed. The big guy in the White House won’t tolerate it from members of Congress or even from world leaders and lately has been denouncing some of his media interrogators as beneath his disrespect.  Members of Congress are upset when their constituents do have the courage to comment, and the constituents aren’t nice about it. They are upset at an obligation they should feel to hear what their people think even if it’s direct.

The big problem is that Republican members of Congress can’t dodge the issues. Or maybe we should say they can’t DOGE the issues.

Get a spine, Congressfolk.  Look at what the impact on the folks back home caused by a little man with a messianic complex. Come home and tell your farmers their markets are going to suffer because of tariffs, that the concerns about the social safety net are not valid, that the dismantling of the weather bureau and the disaster relief agencies  and the air traffic control system—and the price of Mexican beer should not be of concern.

We recall from our history-readings that when Andrew Jackson felt he had been wronged by future Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton and when Jackson was threatening to shoot Benton in a Tennessee hotel confrontation, he sounded at Benton, “Defend yourself, you damned rascal!”

It’s time for the damned rascals who are scared of the man in the White House (whose idol happens to be Andrew Jackson) who places loyalty above service; retribution above public responsibility; and lies above truth to explain themselves to the people who trusted them enough to put them in their offices.

Those who lack the courage to explain to their people why they lack the courage to oppose policies hurtful to the public interest don’t deserve more time to display their spinelessness.

Well—

They can run but they can’t hide.  And when they run again, the voting activists that they did not wish to face where they live might have a more important message than the “outside agitators” they didn’t want to address had.

The VEEP

Andy Borowitz is a New York-based humorist and political commentator who a few days ago posted this on The Borowitz Report:

MUSK’S DEPT. OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY CUTS POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT

(WASHINGTON—The Borowitz Report) —Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has eliminated the position of vice president of the United States, Musk announced on Monday.

“The job of the vice president is to fill in for the president if he falls ill,” Musk said. “This seemed unnecessary since I’m in superb health.”

Musk added that he was inspired to cut the VP position “because JD Vance hasn’t been seen in weeks and no one’s missed him.”

According to sources within DOGE, Vance will immediately be reassigned as a used Tesla salesman.

-0-

Well, is a Vice-President about as useful as a (fill in the blank)?

His or her main importance is that the Veep will become the Prez if the big guy is ruled incapable of continuing in office.

One of country’s best-ever syndicated political commentators, Jules Witcover, wrote a book that came out in 2014, The Americam Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power.  His column that came out on October 18, 2014, was headlined, “Come On, Joe, Being Veep Ain’t So Bad: The Virtues of the vice-president.”

We have a new Veep, one who seemed to disappear at some point in the recent campaign; not an unusual situation when the presidential nominee sucks all of the air out of a room or out of a campaign. But it’s likely he will become more visible because he’s likely to break a lot of votes, as he did a few days ago when he broke a tie to confirm a new cabinet member. We enjoyed Witcover’s column so much that we offer it now that  J.D. Vance has become America’s official second banana. .

The general public regard for the American vice presidency was once summed up by Thomas R. Marshall, Woodrow Wilson’s standby, in the sad story of a man who had two sons. One was lost at sea, the other became vice president of the United States, and neither was ever heard from again. Wilson offered his own judgment of Marshall by once unguardedly referring to him as “a small-caliber man.”

The office of the vice presidency has never ceased to be the brunt of ridicule—even by its very occupants. Vice President Joe Biden at Harvard last week jokingly derided the office as “a bitch” before quickly insisting, perhaps less convincingly, that taking it was the “best decision I ever made.”

Not all vice presidents would say the same, especially most of the early, long-forgotten ones like Daniel Tompkins, George Dallas and William King. But despite Marshall’s and Biden’s gibes, most latter-day occupants of the second office have been significant—in some cases, essential—presidential partners in governing the country, attesting to the power of the role. Often, less-than-illustrious vice presidential performances have had less to do with the office itself than with the selection of running mates by presidents-to-be and how well, once elected, they made use of their seconds-in-command. If being vice president is like being lost at sea, it’s because, as history confirms, for too long presidents picked their VPs frivolously or carelessly and then left them to drift.

The first three presidents—George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—had no say whatsoever concerning the identity of their vice presidents, as the Constitution stipulated that the runner-up in the balloting for president would get the job. The faults of this system were soon apparent. Adams, as Washington’s first veep, observed woefully, not unlike Biden, that “in this I am nothing, but I may be everything.” The second VP, Thomas Jefferson, used much of his four years in the office subverting his boss by creating what eventually became the Democratic Party, while publicly deploring “factions” in the young nation’s politics. (He once insisted, “if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.” Two centuries later, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. was moved to observe: “Even Jefferson soon decided that, with the right party, he would be willing to go, if not to heaven, at least to the White House.”)

By 1804, when the Twelfth Amendment was ratified, it had become clear that the existing VP selection system meant members of rival factions might be forced to work together, imperiling continuity of policy if a vice president succeeded to the presidency. At first, the path to the vice presidency was often through the death of a commander in chief. Eight accidental presidents, from John Tyler to Lyndon Johnson reached the Oval Office through the death of their party leader (though Tyler opportunistically turned Whig once he was president), and Gerald Ford got there by way of Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal.

Other Vice Presidents Who Hated Their Job

“Look at all the Vice Presidents in history. Where are they? They were about as useful as a cow’s fifth teat.” —Harry Truman

“Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected vice president of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again.”  —Thomas R. Marshall

“I go to funerals. I go to earthquakes.” —Nelson Rockefeller

“I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history, than vice president.” —Theodore Roosevelt, before becoming William McKinley’s vice president

“I have no interest in it. Might very well turn it down, indeed, and probably would.” —Al Gore, before becoming Bill Clinton’s vice president

“The vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm piss.” —John Nance Garner

But in the modern era, seekers of the two top offices, for practical purposes, have run on the same ticket—and increasingly the president wisely has decided to make greater use of the second office in governance. For too many years, presidents basically ignored their understudy as they clung warily to their power and closely guarded presidential secrets. In 1945, when Vice President Harry Truman took the Oval Office after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, he hadn’t even been told that the atomic bomb that would end World War II was near completion. Succeeding vice presidents were generally kept better informed, but 30 more years passed before they were employed in a manner commensurate to their experience and skills. Even Lyndon Johnson, master of the U.S. Senate prior to becoming John F. Kennedy’s second-in-command, was essentially kept on the sidelines as key Kennedy aides handled major legislative matters, to LBJ’s immense frustration.

Ironically, not until a Washington outsider named Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 was the vice president made a genuine presidential partner. Carter personally interviewed and chose running mate Walter Mondale, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, who, in alliance with the president, was most responsible for the evolution of the second office.

In a sense, the defeated 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern inadvertently played a role in the development of the Mondale model. After selecting Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri as his original running mate under the pressures of a contested national convention, McGovern dropped him upon disclosure that Eagleton had received electric-shock therapy for mental depression. The furor persuaded Carter four years later to conduct a thorough personal vetting of several running-mate prospects, including Mondale.

In advance of Mondale’s interview by Carter in Plains, Georgia, the senator’s chief of staff Richard Moe drew up a detailed memorandum on what Carter seemed to need and want in a vice president. Mondale and Moe then crafted a paper describing what Mondale could offer and sent it to Carter, who bought into it at once. When he met Mondale, Carter told him: “I want you to be in the chain of command—a vice president with the power to act in the president’s place.”

Once installed in the White House, Carter and Mondale together created the modern model for putting the vice presidency to work fulltime. Carter gave Mondale complete access to him in the Oval Office and to his inner circle, and made him his chief adviser in dealing with Congress, about which Carter had no experience, as was often revealed.

Since then, after a long history of idle and near-invisible occupants, the office has evolved into a vehicle of notable political power. Four of the last six vice presidents—Mondale, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden—have had major roles in governing the nation never envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Their power, to be sure, has been delegated by the presidents under whom they’ve served; the Constitution gives the vice president only two roles, as presidential standby and president of the U.S. Senate, without a vote except to break a tie. These four, however VPs, and to a lesser extent two others—the senior George Bush, who later was elected president in his own right, and his vice president, Dan Quayle—also had access to the president and freedom to weigh in on certain policy decisions.

The senior Bush, who first ran for president against Ronald Reagan in 1980 before becoming his VP, professed to abhor the vice presidency. When asked whether he would accept it, he repeatedly said: “Take Sherman and cube it,” referring to the Civil War general’s declaration that “if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.” But in the end, Bush took the job and kept a low profile, particularly as Reagan recovered from the 1981 assassination attempt that could have made his stand-in the president.

When Bush was elected president in 1988, for a sort of third Reagan term that distinctly didn’t turn out that way, he startled the political world by selecting the singularly unimpressive Quayle as his running mate. Presidential nominees always vow they will pick the individual most qualified to succeed to the presidency if destiny dictates, but Bush appeared to pick his own Bush as vice president—a youthful and pleasant enough fellow from a well-off conservative family who would happily serve in the shadow of the president. But the gaffe-prone choice was particularly baffling inasmuch as Bush himself, only weeks into his own vice presidency, had come within inches of the presidency in that shooting of Reagan.

Reagan followed the Mondale model in bringing Bush into the West Wing, but without the same regular access. Clinton in 1992 adopted the model with Gore but gave him specific areas of responsibility in government reorganization and cleaning up the environment.

George W. Bush also assigned his vice president specific areas of responsibility—in this case, in military and foreign policy matters—but went a step further. In 2001, the junior Bush allowed Cheney to set up what in some respects was a parallel staff of his own, with key former aides also placed elsewhere in the administration, assuring Cheney broad influence. In turn, Cheney took on roles in expanding presidential powers and wartime policies. His advocacy of intelligence-gathering and treatment of prisoners and detainees cast him almost as a de facto assistant president. Ironically, Bush had asked Cheney to help him find a running mate, and in effect he wound up finding himself.

Biden, after first telling Barack Obama he could better serve his country by continuing as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agreed to be his running mate on Obama’s promise that he would always “be in the room” when major decisions were made. Like Mondale, Biden would serve as a general adviser without departmental or other limiting responsibilities, as both VPs had desired. In office, however, Biden has taken on some specific policy assignments such as overseeing the use of economic stimulus funds in the states and cities and being the administration’s voice for middle-class concerns—and, for good or ill, overseeing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

The most successful vice presidential candidates seem to be the ones explicitly chosen for their judgment and competence. Of course, even in recent experience, this yardstick is not always used. Beyond the senior Bush’s selection of the gaffe-prone Quayle, Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s gamble on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 confirmed that White House aspirants remain capable of yielding to purely political judgments of what may get them elected. Palin proved to be a charismatic running mate but was also one woefully ill-informed on matters that would come to a president’s desk, which might very well have contributed to McCain’s margin of defeat.

In most other cases, the vice presidency has not been much of a stepping-stone to the presidency. After Adams and Jefferson became vice president as runners-up in the soon-discarded presidential balloting, only two occupants, Martin Van Buren and the senior George Bush, ever have been elected directly from the second office—and both lost reelection. Three vice presidents, Mondale, Hubert Humphrey and Gore, did win their party’s presidential nomination, but were left outside the Oval Office looking in. Biden probably won’t even get that far.

Nevertheless, the vice presidency has come a long way, even since its lowest point in 1973, when Spiro Agnew was forced to resign as he faced conviction for taking payoffs from construction contractors as governor in Maryland and later in the White House. President Richard Nixon, himself imperiled in the Watergate scandal, at first regarded Agnew as his insurance policy. A 1973 White House tape caught Nixon telling aides: “Impeach Nixon? Well, then they get Agnew.” And later: “No assassin in his right mind would kill me. They know that if they did they would end up with Agnew!” On another occasion, Nixon considered removing Agnew from the line of presidential succession by appointing him to … the Supreme Court!

Fortunately, most recent presidential nominees have taken to heart their responsibility to choose VPs reasonably qualified to become president. But voters still look to the top of the ticket at the ballot box, leaving to presidents thereafter to make the most—or least—of who’s waiting in the wings.

Today, J. D. Vance, seemingly “the man who wasn’t there” during the latter weeks of the campaign and pretty much since then, has become the gentleman-in-waiting should the oldest person ever inaugurated in the presidency not make it to his political 18th green.

*Jules Witcover and I share the same birth day.  He is about 13-14 years older than I am but is an inspiration to the younger generation of political observers, of which I am a part.   I didn’t say WHICH younger generation, but younger.

When Conscience Brings Ostracism, a Story for Our Time

The latest litmus test for those who want to call themselves Republicans seems to be that they must worship at the Temple of Trump or they’ll be on the political street, kicked under the political bus, considered a political leper, seen as a member of the political Untouchable Class, and a dangerous free thinker.

—-at least in Georgia where former Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan has been expelled from the Republican Party.  He’s been charged with disloyalty because he wrote an op-ed article for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying, “Unlike Trump, I’ve belonged to the GOP my entire life. This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass.”

Just after the start of a new year, the state Republican Party went on Elon Musk’s social media site to tell report that it had expelled Duncan and telling reporters they should refer to him as “expelled Republican Geoff Duncan,” or “ousted Republican Geoff Duncan” when they quoted him “trashing President Trump and the Republican Party.”

Atlanta TV station WAGA reports the party resolution charges Duncan undermined Republican candidates, endorsed Democratic opponents, and leveraged his party affiliation for personal gain. The first two can be understood but we’re waiting to hear what the party think is “personal gain,” other than an appreciation people from both sides might have for someone showing political courage.

Duncan had announced he would vote for Joe Biden and when Biden withdrew, Duncan announced he would vote for Kamala Harris. He said he was taking his stand in defense of his party, telling CNN, “This is where I believe is the best place for us to be able to hit the reset button and create a GOP 2.0, a party that focuses and defends on policies and uses empathy to grow the size of the tent and uses a tone that invites and encourages. I think all Republicans, for the most part, including the ones voting for Donald Trump, would agree he’s not the future of the party. I think we’re in this awkward spot where regardless of whether Donald Trump wins or loses, this party’s got this short window of time to get it right, to start taking our own medicine.

“If Donald Trump wins there’s no doubt he’ll wreck the car and continue to soil the brand of being a Republican, and so I think you’re going to watch entire herds of Republicans look for somewhere else that’s more respectable,” Duncan added. “That could mean we could start hemorrhaging to Democrats by droves.”

His concern, it seems, was regarded as a dangerous speaking of truth to power. He appears now to be a man without a party.  Whether that is worse than being a party without this kind of a principled man is worth exploring. But Duncan is unlikely to be alone as Republicans with a modicum of courage wonder how much damage Trump can do to the party before the 2026 mid-term elections.

The actions make the Georgia Republican Party appear to be a party of totalitarianism, incapable of discussing its internal differences and clearly putting party ahead of country.

It appears to still be okay for self-identified Democrats to cross over to vote for some Republicans.  But, in Georgia at least, a Republican cannot exercise a freedom of conscience in choosing the candidate, especially one running for the country’s highest office.

Duncan’s greatest sin seems to be that he went public with his thoughts.

Lord help us if the people we elect are not free to exercise their conscience in determining public policy and in discussing it in the public square. The idea that people making public policy should not discuss issues with someone of another political party is, not to put too fine a point on it, Un-American.

Whether the old saying that politics are left at the doors of legislative chambers has never been entirely true. But totally rejecting the idea, as seems to be the case far too often these days,  limits our nation and our state in dealing with the needs of the people.

Duncan can give himself whatever party label he wants to give himself. Despite his party’s attempt to dictate how the press should describe Duncan, it is Duncan’s right, at least for now in our country, to describe himself as a Republican.

Why should party loyalty dictate that one of its members MUST vote for “a criminal defendant without a moral compass?”

The Republican Party’s reaction raises questions about what moral compass IT follows.  If I were a reporter in Georgia, I would bore in on that issue.