Category Archives: elections

A Distinction Without a Difference

Posted on by
1

We were intrigued by the reactions several days ago by the major Republican candidates for Governor to the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision that Donald Trump is ineligible to be on thee Colorado primary ballot.  Intrigued but not surprised.

Jay Ashcroft said, “The State of Missouri will reject” the ruling. “The people of this state will make a decision as to who they want to be President of the United States.”  There’s a flaw in that proclamation. The ruling is not Missouri’s to reject. In fact there are Missourians who are turning handsprings and hoping it’s upheld. It’s a matter not from a Missouri Court but from a Colorado court and it is for the national justice system to decide on appeals.

Bill Eigel echoed, “Citizens pick presidents, not unelected liberal Justices.”  In November, yes.  But citizens also can bring lawsuits that might determine who’s on the Missouri ballot in November.

And Mike Kehoe sang from the same hymnal: “Voters have the right to decide who our President is, not unelected liberal judges.

How about unelected CONSERVATIVE judges?  Are they the only ones who can make decisions such as these?

Or, maybe, should only ELECTED judges have the right to rule on constitutional questions?  If they subscribe to that idea, they favor eliminating the Missouri Supreme Court, which is appointed.

What is it, gentlemen?

And while we’re at it, DID Trump engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 when he urged a big crowd to keep the Congress from certifying an election he lost?

Ashcroft, as the state’s top election official, is going to file a friend of the court brief supporting Trump’s candidacy when the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, presumably a court these three would endorse because Trump made sure it tilts conservative. A lower Colorado court had ruled that Trump could not be removed from the ballot because the 14th Amendment, the central arguing point for the Keep Trump folks, is vague about whether it covers the President of the United States. The issue is whether “officers of the United States” in the amendment includes the president who is the top officer of the United States. One of the responsibilities of Supreme Courts at the state and federal level is to clarify vague language in the statutes or the constitutions.

But how can a ruling from an unelected U. S. Supreme Court be acceptable regardless of what the ruling is because none of the Justices was elected, even the conservative ones?

Those who favor the concept of originalist interpretation of the Constitution will enjoy this.

Ashcroft also argues that the amendment refers to people who take an oath to “support” the Constitution. But the presidential oath swears to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.  It will be interesting to see how the judges in Washington D. C. split that hair.  It sounds from our high observation point like a distinction without a difference.

What does that mean?

A check of the logicallyfalacious.com website offers this explanation:

Claim X is made where the truth of the claim requires a distinct difference between A and B.

There is NO distinct difference between A and B.

Therefore, claim X is incorrectly claimed to be true.

Can one “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution without being in “support” of it?  And in the reverse, can one “support” the Constitution without taking steps to “preserve, protect and defend” it?

As far as Ashcroft’s claim that “the people of the state will make a decision as to who they want to be President of the United States,” let’s wait to see if anybody files a lawsuit to keep Trump off the Missouri primary election ballot—-and how those unelected Missouri Supreme Court judges who early in their careers as lawyers had to take this oath:

I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Missouri;
That I will maintain the respect due courts of justice, judicial officers and members of my profession and will at all times conduct myself with dignity becoming of an officer of the court in which I appear;
That I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
That I will at all times conduct myself in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct; and,
That I will practice law to the best of my knowledge and ability and with consideration for the defenseless and oppressed.
So help me God.

The oath allows some latitude. It’s okay to substitute “affirm” for “swear,” and it’s okay to substitute “under the pains and penalties of perjury” instead of saying, “So help me God” at the end.

Someday we’ll discuss the silly argument against “unelected” people.  After all, one of the three candidates we’ve just mentioned once was an unelected person serving in one of the state’s highest offices. That defect didn’t seem to limit his effectiveness in carrying out his sworn duties.  Just for the record, this is the oath that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Missouri take:

I ­­­­_________ do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Missouri and I will faithfully demean myself in the office of Governor (or Lt. Governor) of the State of Missouri.”

It’s different for members of the legislature.  The first part is the same but after swearing to support the Constitutions, it continues, “and faithfully perform the duties of my office, and that I will not knowingly receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law.”

—campaign contributions from those who approve of their voting record or who would benefit from their voting record notwithstanding (that part is not included).

Well, the Colorado case is headed to a bunch of unelected Justices in Washington to interpret a Constitutional Amendment written at the end of the Civil War to keep people like Robert E. Lee or our own Confederate Governor, Thomas C. Reynolds, who had sworn loyalty to the state and federal Constitutions and then tried to wipe out the government they’d sworn to uphold and protect to keep them from ever holding public office again.

University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber provides an almost line-by-line explanation of the amendment. We’ll find out eventually if this is the kind of thinking the Supreme Court will adopt, but his references to the original purpose of the amendment might be helpful to understanding in in its totality.

Does 14th Amendment bar Trump from office? A constitutional scholar explains Colorado ruling • Missouri Independent

The unelected Justices have a special oath that actually is two oaths in one, a Judicial Oath and a Constitutional Oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

These judges who have sworn to “support and defend” the Constitution might decide if the oaths they took mean they also “protect and preserve” the Constitution.

(This entry was misdated for January 3, 2023 by mistake but has since been placed in its proper chronological context thanks to the eye of a long-time friend who commented on it two days before it was supposed to appear here.  let this be a reminder to all of us that it is now Twenty-twenty-FOUR).

 

 

This One Joins Legendary Defenses

Posted on by
Reply

But this time it didn’t work.  REALLY didn’t work.

The story has been told that one of Missouri’s colorful early lawyers once had a client who had been accused of libeling another person. In his closing argument, the lawyer told the jury his client could not be found guilty of libel because he was such an inveterate liar that nobody would believe him and since nobody would believe anything he said, his remarks could not have slandered the plaintiff.

The story says the jury was sympathetic to that plea and the liar was found not guilty.

Such an argument came to mind a few days ago while listening and watching and reading of of the defense attorney for Rudy Giuliani in Giuliani’s trial for defaming two Georgia women with his lies about the 2020 election. He  had said he would take the stand in his own defense and prove that everything he had said was true. His attorney did not let him testify.

The defense, in the end, was an effort to evoke sympathy from the jury for the day’s equivalent of Missour’s 19th Century liar.  Giuliani’s lawyer, Joseph Sibley, told jurors, “We made the decision not to have my client testify because these women have been through enough. These women were victims and, as the court has ruled, my client has committed wrongf ul actions against them.”

Sibley might have made some jurors’ jaws mentall drop when he said, “I have no doubt that Mr. Giuliani’s statements caused harm; no question about it. But just because these things happened, it doesn’t make my client responsible for them.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!

“When you see my client’s state of mind, you’re going to say, ‘You should have been better but weren’t as bad as the plaintiff’s make you out to be,” Sibley said, because, “Rudy Giuliani is a good man.  I know that some of you may not think that. He hasn’t exactly helped himself with some of the things that have happened in the last few days. The idea of him being a racist, or him encouraging racist activity, that’s a really low blow. That’s not who he is. He overcame negative stereotypes.” .

“I know he’s done things that are wrong. I know these women have been harmed. I’m not asking for a hall pass on that,” Sibley said. But damages had to be “in some way tied to what the actual damages are.”  They had to be “more closely related to the actual damage number.”

And just what would be that “actual number?”

Sibley pleaded for the jury to have mercy on Giuliani, whom he described as a “flat earther” who would never quit believing  his own lies. Sibley harkened back to the days when “America’s Mayor” was a unifying force in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. “This is a man who did great things. If he hasn’t been so great lately, I want you to judge him by the entire character of who he is.”

Let’s add some context to this:  Twenty-five years ago, a prominent Democrat was accused of (pardon the vulgarity here) diddling an intern.  Bill Clinton said, “There’s nothing going on between us,” to his top aides. When a grand jury asked him a question to the effect, “Is there anything between you and Miss Lewinski, Clinton answered with this masterpiece of gold-medal verbal gymnastics:

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is…If ‘is’ means is and never has been…that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…Now if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relatons with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no and it would have been completely true.”

If there ever were created an Encyclopedia of Jabberwockey, the statements of Bill Clinton and Joseph Sibley would have to be featured.

Giuliani was Giuliani after the jury nailed him with a $148 million judgement: “The absurdity of the number really underscores the absurdity of the entire proceeding. I am quite confident that when this case gets before a fair tribunal, it will be reversed so quickly it’ll make your head spin. The absurd number that just came in will help that, actually.”

It would not be surprising if an appeals court reduces the damage awards; they sometimes do that while upholding the defamation judgment.

Regardless of what happens on appeal, this jury sent a message to others who have espoused the “stolen election” lie and who are facing their own defamation suits from voting machine companies and from other election workers. They should be very nervous.

If reports are true, Giuliani has little money and many creditors.  Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss might see little or no cash.  But they have received justice.  Whether they ever can get their lives back, though, is questionable.

Is there any amount that could make these women whole again?  Ruby Freeman says people with bullhorns standing outside the house where she had lived for 20 years, shouting racist insults, have forced her to leave  her house and move time and again, her belongings in her car.

Shaye Moss said she’s afraid to leave house, fears being lynched, and that she’s received death threats repeatedly.

Sibley urged the jury to “send a messge to America that we can come together with compassion and sympathy. And I think we need that.”

Let’s just hold hands and sing Kum by ya, in other words. Shaye and Ruby can lead it off.

Giuliani’s state of mind.  We’re so tired of hearing the word “unhinged” used for him and for his leader and others in that merry band, but we don’t have hours to spend with the big dictionary at the back of the classroom to find a better one.

How did it reach this point?  How could a great man in 2001 fall so far in less than twenty years?

We have referred in a past column to Giuliani as the most pitiful person in American politics. He is likely to stand in history as a great example of the dangers of falling in thrall to a person of no morals, of no respect  for anyone else, of no goal but power. It is telling that Giuliani’s Pied Piper has never shown on his own social platform or political stages any responsibility for the actions taken by Giuliani on behalf of his leader.

It is possible to have pity on someone but have no sympathy for them.  What he and his leader have done to these women, to many others, and to the nation itself deserves stern judgement. The jury has inflicted what Sibley has called a financial “death penalty” on Giuliani. So be it.  He has never personally asked for mercy; he has, in fact,  shown no remorse for what these people have gone through because of his words and has blamed others for what he has said. He threw gasoline on his own fire during the trial when he told reporters , “Everything I said about them is true,” and he reiterated that the women “were engaged in changing votes,” remarks that the judge suggested could lead to another defamation lawsuit.

After the verdict Giuliani remained defiant—”I don’t regret a damn thing,” he said. So much for coming together with compassion and sympathy.

This is why we have jury trials.  A dozen people who struggle to achieve justice from injustice is one of the greatest parts of our democratic system. There are plaintiffs and there are defendants. And then there are the heroes of our democracy, the jurors.

Dictator For A Day 

Posted on by
Reply

Who wouldn’t like to be Dictator For A Day?   Let’s be honest.  What would  you dictate?

How about world peace?

Economic stability?

Real opportunities to achieve the American Dream?

Or to define the American Dream?

An unending supply of money to donate to programs to feed the hungry, house the ill-housed, give everybody a chance for however much education they might need to reach  their goals, help crime victims, cure diseases, etc.?

Then what would you do on the second day?

—Because you’ve only been a dictator for one day?

Wouldn’t it be smart on the first day to dictate that your authority extended for the rest of your life?   (I’ve always wondered by people who rub the lamp and find a genie in their midst granting them three wishes didn’t immediately wish for unlimited wishes.)

Our former president says he won’t be a dictator except on the first day when he’ll build the wall and drill, drill, drill. We hope he doesn’t get a cramp in his hand from signing all of his executive orders.

One day of a dictatorship is 24 hours too many.

A long-ago friend of mine once remarked after listening to a public office holder proclaim upon his inauguration that God intended him to be in that office, “Never trust a politician with a messianic complex.”

Let’s take a big leap beyond that.

Never, ever, trust a politician who says he wants to be a dictator for only one day, or denies obvious thoughts of being a dictator far longer. An old limerick warns us against placing trust in such a person:

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.

The Team Player

Posted on by
Reply

Being a team player means placing greater value on a team’s success than on individual achievement.

In sports it might mean passing up a chance to hit a home run when a sacrifice bunt is necessary.  In business it might mean supporting the competitor who got the job you wanted because the company is more important than one job, more important than one individual.

Sometimes being a team player means figure out what your team is.

The issue came up recently when Congresswoman Ann Wagner, who represents a district in eastern Missouri, announced she would support Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who had the backing of former President Trump, for Speaker of the House just days after she said she would “absolutely not” support him.  She complained that when Jordan lost the original caucus vote to Congressman Steve Scalise, “He gave the most disgraceful, ungracious—I can’t call it a concession speech—of all time.”

Talk about a turnaround!

She justified her change by saying it is because she is a team player.

In baseball terms, she tore off her Cardinals uniform and put on one for the Cubs. Instantly.

More and more, though, it appears we don’t have teams in Washington.  We have tribes.  At least four of them: the extreme right tribe, the center right tribe, the center left tribe, and the extreme left tribe.

Jordan, whose record of getting bills passed is so thin it is, well, non-eixtent*, got the Republican conference’s majority vote as its candidate for Speaker—-but with substantial opposition, casting doubt on whether he could get the 217 Republican votes he needed to take the gavel. He came out of the conference caucus 65 votes short of what he needed in a floor vote. He and his supporters spent the days getting people like Wagner to turn around. But 65 votes was a whole lot of turning. And Jordan couldn’t do it.

Some of his opponents had the temerity to suggest that the Republican minority within the Republican majority might align with Democrats to pick a Speaker, an impracticality at the time because a Democrat in charge of a chaotic Republican House would be unable to bring sanity to the large room that seemingly needs to add padding to its walls and to rewrite its recently-rewritten dress code to include canvas blazers with long sleeves that tie in the back.

But give credit to those who have had the courage to suggest that the other side is not the enemy; they’re just friends who have different ideas.  And if they can find areas of agreement and move forward, it sure beats focusing on differences that stand in the way of service.

We do not mean to target Wagner in this entry because there are others who have misunderstood the concept of team when they proclaim in word and deed that they, too, are team players, an observation that applies to both of our political parties.  She just happened to use the phrase.

Minority Democrats, who have seemingly been inessential to the slim-majority Republicans and therefore beneath respect by them, have had the luxury of sitting back and watching the GOP House fall into a state of extreme disarray without addressing the possibly troublesome fringe of their own party and the mischief it might cause if Democrats regain control of the House—which a lot of pundits think the Republicans are proving should be the case.

It appears the only teams that matter in that climate are Republican and Democrat.  Anyone who has spent a lot of time inside the political system at the national or state level can understand how consuming that world becomes, so consuming that the real team is forgotten.

As we said earlier, there are four tribes in the House, not two teams.

Who IS the team?

Look in your mirrors.

Somebody in Washington or Jefferson City wants to be a team player?  The first step is to get rid of tribes. The second step is remembering who the team really is.

WE are the team.

Reaching across the aisle in a way that benefits the team more than it benefits any one tribe isn’t a crucifiable offense.

Was Jim Jordan interested in taking one for the team?  No, he was in it for Jim Jordan (and his big booster at the time).  And he lost three times, each time with fewer members of his own party supporting him.

So what is the team’s responsibility for straightening out the whole mess? Simple. Pay attention to what our congressional delegation is saying and doing and make sure that whomever we send to Washington next November is more loyal to country than to tribe and certainly more loyal to country than to a disgraceful former leader.

*The New Republic, an unabashedly liberal publication, said in its October 17 webpage entry,  “Jordan stands out among his predecessors and colleagues because he is not a real lawmaker… The Center for Effective Lawmaking, a project by Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia, rates House members based on their legislative performance. In the 117th Congress, Jordan was tied for fourth place among the least effective lawmakers.

Jordan sponsored only a single bill in the last Congress—on social media censorship, a perennial issue among some conservatives—and it did not advance out of committee. He has never successfully drafted a bill that became law…Meredith Lee Hill, who covers all agriculture-related goings-on on Capitol Hill for Politico, reported that Jordan’s supporters pitched his speakership to agriculture-minded Republicans as the “best way to get the huge [Farm] bill to the floor” in what remains of this Congress’s term. As Hill noted, Jordan has never himself voted for a farm bill at any time in his career.”

-0-

The Team Player 

Posted on by
Reply

Being a team player means placing greater value on a team’s success than on individual achievement.

In sports it might mean passing up a chance to hit a home run when a sacrifice bunt is necessary.  In business it might mean supporting the competitor who got the job you wanted because the company is more important than one job, more important than one individual.

Sometimes being a team player means figure out what your team is.

The issue came up recently when Congresswoman Ann Wagner, who represents a district in eastern Missouri, announced she would support Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who had the backing of former President Trump, for Speaker of the House just days after she said she would “absolutely not” support him.  She complained that when Jordan lost the original caucus vote to Congressman Steve Scalise, “He gave the most disgraceful, ungracious—I can’t call it a concession speech—of all time.”

Talk about a turnaround!

She justified her change by saying it is because she is a team player.

In baseball terms, she tore off her Cardinals uniform and put on one for the Cubs. Instantly.

More and more, though, it appears we don’t have teams in Washington.  We have tribes.  At least four of them: the extreme right tribe, the center right tribe, the center left tribe, and the extreme left tribe.

Jordan, whose record of getting bills passed is so thin it is, well, non-existent,* got the Republican conference’s majority vote as its candidate for Speaker—-but with substantial opposition, casting doubt on whether he could get the 217 Republican votes he needed to take the gavel. He came out of the conference caucus 65 votes short of what he needed in a floor vote. He and his supporters spent the days getting people like Wagner to turn around. But 65 votes was a whole lot of turning. And Jordan couldn’t do it.

Some of his opponents had the temerity to suggest that the Republican minority within the Republican majority might align with Democrats to pick a Speaker, an impracticality at the time because a Democrat in charge of a chaotic Republican House would be unable to bring sanity to the large room that seemingly needs to add padding to its walls and to rewrite its recently-rewritten dress code to include canvas blazers with long sleeves that tie in the back.

But give credit to those who have had the courage to suggest that the other side is not the enemy; they’re just friends who have different ideas.  And if they can find areas of agreement and move forward, it sure beats focusing on differences that stand in the way of service.

We do not mean to target Wagner in this entry because there are others who have misunderstood the concept of team when they proclaim in word and deed that they, too, are team players, an observation that applies to both of our political parties.  She just happened to use the phrase.

Minority Democrats, who have seemingly been inessential to the slim-majority Republicans and therefore beneath respect by them, have had the luxury of sitting back and watching the GOP House fall into a state of extreme disarray without addressing the possibly troublesome fringe of their own party and the mischief it might cause if Democrats regain control of the House—which a lot of pundits think the Republicans are proving should be the case.

It appears the only teams that matter in that climate are Republican and Democrat.  Anyone who has spent a lot of time inside the political system at the national or state level can understand how consuming that world becomes, so consuming that the real team is forgotten.

As we said earlier, there are four tribes in the House, not two teams.

Who IS the team?

Look in your mirrors.

Somebody in Washington or Jefferson City wants to be a team player?  The first step is to get rid of tribes. The second step is remembering who the team really is.

WE are the team.

Reaching across the aisle in a way that benefits the team more than it benefits any one tribe isn’t a crucifiable offense.

Was Jim Jordan interested in taking one for the team?  No, he was in it for Jim Jordan (and his big booster at the time).  And he lost three times, each time with fewer members of his own party supporting him.

So what is the team’s responsibility for straightening out the whole mess? Simple. Pay attention to what our congressional delegation is saying and doing and make sure that whomever we send to Washington next November is more loyal to country than to tribe and certainly more loyal to country than to a disgraceful former leader.

*The New Republic, an unabashedly liberal publication, said in its October 17 webpage entry,  “Jordan stands out among his predecessors and colleagues because he is not a real lawmaker… The Center for Effective Lawmaking, a project by Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia, rates House members based on their legislative performance. In the 117th Congress, Jordan was tied for fourth place among the least effective lawmakers.

Jordan sponsored only a single bill in the last Congress—on social media censorship, a perennial issue among some conservatives—and it did not advance out of committee. He has never successfully drafted a bill that became law…Meredith Lee Hill, who covers all agriculture-related goings-on on Capitol Hill for Politico, reported that Jordan’s supporters pitched his speakership to agriculture-minded Republicans as the “best way to get the huge [Farm] bill to the floor” in what remains of this Congress’s term. As Hill noted, Jordan has never himself voted for a farm bill at any time in his career.”

1,078

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor at Boston College whose “Letters from an American” daily Substack newsletter place contemporary events within a historical context. USA Today named her one of its Women of the Year honorees last  year.

Joyce Vance is a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and now a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer in Law (criminal justice reform, criminal procedure, and civil rights are her specialties) at the University of Alabama School of Law.

We are borrowing from a couple of things they wrote when our immediately former president was arraigned on criminal charges on August 3.

Donald Trump is charged with crimes linked to the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol.  Richardson cites the federal prosecutor for Washington D. C. is observing that Trump is the 1,078th person charged with federal crimes connected to those events. And he was arraigned in the same courtroom where many of those 1,077 others have appeared, or will appear.

She also cites Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, responding to defense claims that the charges infringe on Trump’s constitutionally-protected right to free speech even if his remarks were repeated lies.  The charges, however, appear not to attack his free speech remarks but instead focus on the greater issue of his illegal efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election.

Snyder thinks we should not be distracted from the real point of the charges: “That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is the fulfillment of his rights.  It is the grace of the American republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial.”

We would add that in most failed coup attempts we have read about in our long life, what follows is a quick assumption of guilt and often a quick dispatching of what is called justice.

Richardson also notes in that day’s “letter,” that the arraignment took place on the same days that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a transcript of their interview with a Hunter Biden business associate that GOP committee members claim proves then Vice-President Biden was personally involved in some shady business deals involving Hunter.  She says the interview transcript undermines the Republicans’ claims although they’re overlooking that issue.

(If you want to read Richardsons full “letter,” you can find it at:

August 3, 2023 – by Heather Cox Richardson (substack.com)

Joyce Vance’s column, “Civil Discourse” says that, “Many people…have become inured to Trump’s behavior…A real problem with Trump is that there is just so much of it that he is exhausting. For some people it is easier to tune it out than it is to try to keep all of it in focus.”  But she says the people need to re-connect and follow the process by which these charges are dealt with “so they can assess the evidence and the proceedings for themselves…It is every American’s obligation to follow this process.”

One subtle thing she mentions is that in court, the former president is just “Mr. Trump,” a designation that applies generally to (male) trial participants.  No matter what your station is life is, or has been, you are equal in the eyes of the law to every other person who has gone through this process…Donald Trump was treated like anyone else in his position would be. Investigation having found that there is sufficient evidence of significant crimes, he has been charged by a grand jury. He now has the same opportunity to defend himself that anyone would have.”

She explains that, “Arraignment is usually a perfunctory matter, as it was for Trump… It is governed by Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a defendant be advised of the charges against him and enter a plea to them. The traditional plea at the time of arraignment is one of not guilty. The defendant has not yet seen the government’s evidence against him—there is no informed basis for knowing whether the government can prove what it has charged. So it is no surprise that the plea Donald Trump entered…was one of not guilty.”

But this arraignment has an unusual twist, she says. While judges normally tell the defendants not to commit any new crimes while they are free on the streets, this instruction was different. The judge warned Trump not to try to influence a juror or witnesses.  If he violates that admonition, he could find himself sleeping on government-issues sheets at night and wearing government-issued clothes.

Was Trump listening to the Judge’s admonition?  Vance thinks he wasn’t. A day after he was released on pre-trial bond, Trump went on Truth Social and said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Vance says  on X (the former Twitter) that Trump crossed the line. “Free speech is one thing, but this is over the line. As a prosecutor, I’d be sorely tempted tomake a motion to removke Trump’s pre-trial bond and put him in custody. Let him explain it to the judge.”

Newsweek reports that Trump spokesperson has belittled Vance as “a moron (who) loses sleep because she has Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

So, apparently, does former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, the former lead prosecutor against former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who says—in what until recently would be called a tweet—“Not addressing this will only cause it to metastasize with undue deadly risks.”

A Trump spokesman, not surprisingly, defended the threat as “the definition of political speech,” and then went into full Trump irrational rant, saying it “was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth.”

Forget getting out the hip boots, folks. It’s so deep that you’ll need a full body suit.

Friday night, assistants to federal prosecutor Jack Smith filed a notice with U. S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan expressing concerns Trump might improperly share evidence in the case on Truth Social. They urged the judge to order Trump to keep any evidence given to his lawyers by the prosecutors away from public view.

The judge ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by 5 p.m. today.  When they asked for a three-day extension, she refused to let them have it—which set off another Trump tantrum aimed directly at the judge—not a wise thing even from a self-proclaimed stable genius:  “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous Freedom of Speech/Fair Elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she!”  It was all in capital letters, followed by more capitals announcing plans to seek a new judge and a new location for the trial.

We will be watching to see if the old saying manifests itself—Don’t poke a tiger with a twig.

The prosecution says it wants a speedy trial. Normally it’s the defendant that wants a speedy trial. But in this case, it’s to Mr. Trump’s political advantage to stretch the process as far as possible.

Both Richardson and Vance believe the most important charge against Trump is the final one—the one Vance says “tears at my heart….the conspiracy by an American president to take awy our right to vote…and to have one’s vote counted.”

Vance concludes that a dozen people in the courtroom will decide Trump’s fate but all of us are a “jury in the court of public opinion.”

“The outcome of the 2024 election really is every inch the most important election of our lives. The indictment itself is not evidence, but it lays out the narrative of the facts we saw unfold before our eyes and helps us make sense of the crimes that Trump is charged with committing. It is an important document for every American to read. Not everyone will, but that’s where we can come in, sharing details, and helping people around us, understand the procedures that begin today. It’s the real work of saving the republic.”

You can read her full Civil Discourse insights at Arraignment – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance (substack.com)

Federal court rules do not allow live broadcast coverage of trials. But the standard is a rule, not a law and the exigent circumstances of this case, which will be a transcendant event in American history and will involve questions basic to the survival of our republic, should create an exception to the rule so that all of us canbe witnesses to these evens. It is of such overwhelming importance that our grandchildren’s grandchildren should be able to see and hear how our generation responded to this crisis.

We agree that the 2024 election will be “the most important election of our lives.”  It is far more important to all of us and to our nation as a whole that all of us pay close attention to the truth that emerges in the trial of 1708 than it is to give heed to anything the interpreters of that testimony on the left and the right want us to think.

 

 

 

No.  No?  Yes, No. (Corrected)

Posted on by
Reply

(This story contains corrected information.  Former Congressman Richard Gephardt’s position on “No Labels” was incorrectly stated in the first version of this post as being part of the organization. This story clarifies his that he not only is not, but that he is opposed to it.)

The “No Labels” political party is beginning to form itself out of the fog of idealism announced several months ago.  It has drawn former Governor Jay Nixon into its ranks.  But former Congressman and futile (1988) presidential candidate Dick Gephardt wonders if the effort puts the anti-Trump movement in peril.

Organizers say the party is for people who are disgusted with what the long-dominant Republican and Democratic Parties have become and who want to have a middle-ground political outpost upon which to hang their hopes.

Gephardt, who was the House Majority Leader and in line to become Speaker before the Republican takeover ended that possibility, is part of one of three Democratic organizations hoping to stop the movement.

For those who claim that both parties are being run by their extreme wings, this group that has labeled itself the “No Labels” party might seem to be a refuge. But two Democratic groups, Third Way and MoveOn, want to put a stop to the “No Labels” movement because they fear it will sap votes away from the mainline Democratic ticket and hand the presidency back to Donald Trump.

A spokesman for Third Way says “No Labels” is “dangerous.”

Gephardt is part of a super political action committee called Citizens to Save our Republic.

Nixon has told the APs Steve Peoples that the opposition groups are entitled to their opinion but “No Labels” is “entitled to use our constitutional and statutory rights to allow American to have another choice.”

The question now becomes whether the party formed to be a middle ground can find a middle ground with three groups that want to snuff out its movement early.

Regardless of how this intra-party turmoil is resolved—if it can be resolved—“No Labels” adherents need to address, and quickly, what it stands for in terms of policies instead of being some kind of ill-defined safe house for the Middle.

If “No Labels” is to survive, it needs a surface identifier, a logo.. It’s not enough to say it stands for The Middle.

Sooner or later it will have to define itself in terms of positions on issues. And finding an acceptable middle of The Middle will become a difficult challenge.

But before then, there’s another crucial issue.

What will the party symbol be?  The William Jennings Bryan-William Howard Taft election of 1896 provided party adherents with symbols that are familiar to us today.

Earth & World, a website that specializes in lists and charts showing “different and unknown facts” about our planet has a list of the ten friendliest animals in the world. A new party certainly doesn’t want a threatening image (roaring lion, water buffalo, crocodile, vulture, shark, etc.).

Perhaps this guy would work (it is #1):

This is a Capybara,  E&W says they are “immensely social and trainable; thus a dear friend to everyone.” There are a couple of problems, however.  They’re not native to the United States.  And they are considered the world’s largest rodent.

Some cynical observers might find a large rat to be an appropriate emblem for a political party but we’re not going to go there today.  Mankind’s best friend, the dog, might be appropriate but who wants to be known as a member of “a dog of a party?” Besides, what kind of a dog would be most appropriate?  Pit Bulls might fit the wing nuts of either party.  But mainline folks night struggle with the dog to represet them. Something that is an edgy Golden Retriever might do.

A cross between a Golden Retriever and a German Shepherd might do.  DogTime.com told us Golden Shepherds are good watch dogs and all-around family companions, “not especially barky, they will alert when strangers approach. These dogs are protective of their loved ones and friendly with people, children, and other dogs.”

A few Golden Shepherds in Congress would be good to have right now. Replace a few Dobermans.

Number three on the E&W list is the Dolphin.  There’s some possibilities with that one. Intelligent. Communicative. Comfortable in deep water.

Number four is the cat. Not good. Nobody wants a party headquarters that would be known by detractors as the “cat house.”  Their independence is a good cat/bad cat value. But they cover up their own messes and government coverups should not be appreciated no matter how badly the mess smells. Then again, a litter-box trained politician might be better than some that we have now.

The Panda?  Nope.  We’ve enough trouble with the Chinese owning our farmland. A Chinese animal symbolizing one of our political parties is a Yangtze Bridge too far.

Rabbit?   No.  Rabbits are favorite food items for Hawks. And our national government in particular is full of hawks.  And we already have too many people, including a few in politics, who have rabbit-like moral standards.

Guinea pig?  They also are part of the rodent family.  Some people in the Andean part of Peru keep a lot of them in and around the house.  For food. Dinner-under-foot. Cuy (pronounced “kwee”) is considered a delicacy.

Horse.  The horse is one of the world’s most useful animals. Durable, unless they’re throughbreds.  Dependable.  That’s worth discussion.

Sheep.  Heavens, no.

Nixon has refused to criticize either Biden or Trump during the years since he left office. As far as becoming part of a party with no name, he says, “I feel calm.  I feel correct.”

Very Capybaric of him.

 

The Leopard Hasn’t Changed His Spots

Posted on by
Reply

CNN has gotten some undeserved criticism for holding a town hall meeting with Republican likely voters and Donald Trump in New Hampshire last week.

Kaitlin Collins knew that she was going to have to try to lasso a tornado.  She knew that Trump would show no respect for anyone except himself and maybe such admirable figures as Putin and Xi and that he would try to steamroller her.

She did such a good job that Trump called her a “nasty person.”  He didn’t like it that she kept correcting him and challenging his lies, even if it was like trying to take a sip from Niagara Falls.

If I were her, I’d wear that comment with a certain degree of professional pride.

Some Democrats were critical afterwards, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for one: “CNN should be ashamed of themselves.  They have lost control of this ‘town hall’ to again be manipulated into performing election disinformation, defense of Jan 6th, and a public attack on a sexual abuse victim. The audience is cheering him on and laughing at the host.”

From the Republican side of the aisle came this from Erin Perrine, the spokesman for the Never Back Down super PAC backing Ron DeSantis: “The CNN town hall was, as expected, over an hour of nonsense that proved Trump is stuck in the past. After 76 years, Trump still doesn’t know where he stands on important conservative issues like supporting life and the 2nd amendment. How does that make America Great Again?”

Niall Stanage, writing for The Hill, said “Trump did not so much win the event as CNN lost it—catastrophically.” Stanage didn’t like the audience whooping and hollering and applauding Trump, even when he attacked Collins and E. Jean Carroll, the woman who earlier in the week won a five-million dollar damage suit against Trump for sexual battery and defamation.

Rival network commentator Joy Reid on MSNBC referred to the show as “blatant fascism meets the Jerry Springer Show.”  We think that’s a little over the top because no fist fight broke out over somebody’s claim that Trump fathered her child, although the program aired just a day after a civil court jury found Trump liable in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

And what did Trump think?  With his typical modesty, he called the show a “very smart thing” that got “Sky High Ratings that they haven’t seen in a very long time…Many minds were changed on Wednesday night by listening to Common Sense, and sheer ‘Brilliance.’”

Well, of course. Would you expect anything less from a “stable genius?”

While the soundtrack certainly sounded like the audience ate it up, audience cutaways during the broadcast showed plenty of audience members were silent and non-demonstrative.  Republican consultant Matthew Bartlett told correspondent Tara Palmeri of Puck News, a digital media company covering politics, finance, technology, and entertainment news, that many in the audience were “quietly disgusted or bewildered.. In a TV setting you hear the applause but you don’t see the disgust, “ he said.

He was critical of Collins for sparring with Trump instead of taking more audience questions because some disgusted audience members “were ready to confront him” if they had been given the chance.

Here’s why the CNN town hall was not a train wreck:

1.The first such gathering in the campaign cycle showed what our democracy is up against. And it showed the GOP frontrunner for what he (still) is.  And what he is, is what he has been.  He has not learned from his 2020 defeat or from the Carroll lawsuit for from the House January 6 Committee hearings or even from many of his former supporters and enablers who have told him his loud whining about losing the election and doing nothing wrong in trying to intimidate elections officials, the media, prosecutors, and opponents is not doing him any good. He is not a surprise anymore. Republicans can complain about the event, but the energy spent complaining is wasted. Better it be channelled it into keeping his minority segment of the party from keeping the entire party down to his level.

  1. The program provided plenty of evidence for supporters who are thinking about moving past Trump that they should waste no time doing it. For those who are finding him tiresome and his bluster wearing thin, this program gave them an early opportunity to look for a grownup who can life the party out of Swamp Trumpy.
  2. The program showed that he has a core group of supporters that for reasons normal people cannot understand still buy into his egotistical irrationality no matter what.
  3. Clearly, other Republicans know they need to find a way to unify during the primaries to deny him enough delegates for an assured convention nomination (as was the case in 2016).
  4. Trump’s performance might have shown why some believe his firm grip on the party is eroding. Mainline party members can figure out how to put him in the rearview mirror. It’s the old saying, “The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don’t know.”   Trump delivered an opportunity to his party. Several Republicans are making noises about running.  Before they form a circular firing squad, they need to eliminate the outsider who has more bullets than each of them have individually.
  5. If Democrats haven’t cut that broadcast into hundreds of segments they can campaign against, they’re asleep at the switch.
  6. AOC is wrong. Trump might have taken control of the program but he didn’t run over Collins. At the end of the show she was standing almost nose to nose with him, showing control many people would have lost long before, and not backing down to his windstorm, always reminding viewers and listeners that the words “Trump” and “truth” are only remotely related.

He thought she was “nasty.”  This observer thought she was quietly tough enough that he called her a name. I hope somebody creates a bumper sticker to pin to her office bulletin board.

In months to come, there will be other town halls involving both parties.  The cumulative impact of those other town halls should weigh heavily against Trump.  But it would be a mistake if those other town halls focus too much on attacking Trump instead of offering clear, positive, honest alternatives to him.

In fact, he probably hopes they do spend too much time attacking him instead of offering their party and the general public something better.  People like Trump enjoy being attacked by better people because it makes him look bigger and makes them look smaller.

It’s better to have the worst possibility first.  After that things can only get better.  God knows this program succeeded in showing us all why he deserved to lose in 2020 and why he deserves to lose in 2024.

Then again, as we’ve said a few times, Mr. Trump needs to be less worried about whether he’ll get four more years and more worried about whether he’ll get ten to fifteen.

Bob and George, Part II 

Posted on by
1

I’ve already admitted that I appear to be woke and unapologetically so.  Now I have revealed that I once was involved with George Soros.

I have some strongly conservative friends but so far none have made the sign of the cross and waved garlic branches to protect themselves as I have drawn near them.  I swear, however, based on some letters to the editor, that there are people who each night pull their Murphy Beds down from the storage space in their bedroom wall and then look under it to see that George isn’t there.

Here’s how George and I got together.

One of the hinge-points in world history occurred on November 9, 1989 when the gates of the Berlin Wall were opened and the destruction of the wall began.  The fall of the Berlin Wall was the symbolic end of the Cold War, confirmed at a summing meeting on December 2-3 ith George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev during which both declared the Cole War was officially, in their opionons at least, finished. German reunification took place the next October.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republicans quickly fell apart.  When Czechslovak President Gustav Husak resigned on December 10, the only hard line Communist government remaining from the Warsaw Pact was in Nicolai Ceaucesecu’s Romania and he was about done.

(He pronounced his last name Chow-CHESS-koo.)

About the time Berlin was celebrating the fall of the wall, the Romanian Communist Party’s Fifteenth Congress  was electing Ceausescu to another five-year term. His speech that day denounced the Peaceful Revolution, as it was called, that was underway throughout Eastern Europe. Violent demonstrations broke out in the Romanian Capital of Bucharest and in Timisoara, considered the cultural and social center of the western part of the country.

Ceausescu held a mass meeting on University Square in Bucharest four days before Christmas that year in which he blamed the riots in Timisoara on “fascist agitators who want to destroy socialism” but the crowd was having none of it. He was booed and heckled and took cover inside the building.  By the next day the revolution was nationwide and the military turned against him. He fled in a helicopter than had landed on the roof of the building, just ahead of demonstrators who had surged inside. The chopper was ordered to land by the army which soon took custody of the president and his wife.

They were tried on Christmas day by a court established by the provisional government, convicted and sentenced to death. It was reported that hundreds of soldiers volunteered to be their firing squad. A firing squad described as “a gathering of soldiers” began shooting as soon as the two were in front of a wall. Their execution was videotaped and shown on Romanian television.

In the months after those events, Marvin Stone, a former deputy director of the United States Information Agency, with support from Secretary of State James Baker, founded the International Media Fund to “help establish non-governmental media across the former Communist bloc.”

In August and September, 1991, I was one of three men sent to Romania and Poland to conduct seminars under the auspices of the International Media Fund and the National Association of Broadcasters. While there we worked with The Soros Foundation for an Open Society, which organized the seminars we conducted.  The foundation told us it was formed “to promote the values of freedom and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe.”

In order to build an open society, one needs education, free communications and the free flow of ideas, and the development of independent, critical thinking at all levels in society. An open society is characterized by a plurality of opinions. There is never only one truth, such dogmatic thinking is the characteristic of closed societies. In an open system ideas, ideals and opinions are constantly challenged, and they enter into competition with each other.  This free, unhindered competition of ideas yields a better system for all.

I was joined by two other men, Bayard “Bud” Walters of Nashville, the owner of several radio stations who would discuss sales—a novel concept in a country that had nothing approaching a capitalist society or a capitalist mindset—and Julian Breen, a former programmer from WABC in New York who had built WABC to having the largest listening audience in America.

Julian died at the age of 63 in 2005. Bud, who is my age, still runs his Cromwell Media expire from Nashville.  When he was asked a couple of years ago about his career highlights, the first one he cited was being “part of a three-person media team that taught how to have a Free Press in Romania and Poland.”  It was eye-opening and rewarding.”

We spent a week in each country and all three of us were impressed by the enthusiasm the young people of Romania and Poland had for free expression.  I talked about the mechanics of covering the news, of who news sources would be—or should be, of the things people needed to know about in a free society (heavy emphasis on telling people what their government was doing for, to, and with them, a unique thing to those folks).  I talked of ethics, a particular interest of our audience.  I talked about the courage it takes to be a reporter, a quality necessary in building free media in a society still mentally adjusted to totalitarianism.

When we came home, we hoped we had planted some seeds of freedom in countries that still had few free radio stations, countries where many people—especially older ones who were accustomed to cradle-to-grave government regulation of their lives—were not sure what this freedom thing was all about and whether it was a good thing.

But the young people knew it was.  One of them told me there was a great irony in the advent of freedom in Romania.  In 1966, Ceausescu made abortion illegal. It was an effort to increase the country’s population. Decree 770 provided benefits to mothers of five or more children and those with ten or more children were declared “heroine mothers” by the state. The government all but prohibited divorces.

The ”decree-ites,” our friend told me, the children born because of the ban on abortions, constituted the generation of Romanians that revolted and killed Ceaucescu.  And were learning lessons about a free society from us.

A decade later, I was judging an annual contest for excellence in news reporting for the Radio-Television News Directors Association—an international organizationthat made me the first person to lead it twice—when one of my board members announced that we had our first truly international winner.

A young woman from Romania.

I think she was too young to have been in those seminars in ’91.  But knowing that a seed we had sown in Romania had, indeed, flowered, was a strongly emotional moment.

We were sent there by the IMF and the Media Fund.  The seminars at which we spoke were financed by George Soros.

For those who speak his name because of their ignorance of his belief in an open society, I want you to know that I am proud of my association with him even though it was decades ago.  To those who think we as a nation should be ignorant of our history of prejudice, discrimination, and coercion,  and blindly follow those who demean and insult our intelligence in their efforts to get and maintain self-serving power over us, I want to remind you of the goal of George Soros’ Open Society foundation:

In order to build an open society, one needs education, free communications and the free flow of ideas, and the development of independent, critical thinking at all levels in society. An open society is characterized by a plurality of opinions. There is never only one truth, such dogmatic thinking is the characteristic of closed societies. In an open system ideas, ideals and opinions are constantly challenged, and they enter into competition with each other.  This free, unhindered competition of ideas yields a better system for all.

When it comes to freedom, I’d rather have George Soros on my side.  Because I have seen the other side. Unlike so many of those who have turned his name into an empty-headed epithet, I have been within his circle. And I do not fear him.

Despots should.  And I know why.

Showing His Stripes

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wants to be the second son of a former Missouri Governor to also achieve that office.*  Ashcroft seems to have been aloof from the three-ring show at the Attorney General’s office that has involved lawsuits against China, meddling in the elections of other states and, now, joining an abortion lawsuit in Texas—all of which by some twisted logic seem to involve protecting or advocating MISSOURI’s laws.

But with the passing of the 2022 elections, Ashcroft has left his moderate self at home and has started to show his stripes.

His declaration a few months ago that he alone can withhold state aid to public libraries unless they agree with his personal standards on what’s fit for your children and my children to read is scary.  He seems to be most worried about the corruptive influences of anything other than stories about married heterosexual adults sleeping in separate beds (the Rob and Laura Petrie model of marital bliss).  His proposed policy is worrisome enough on its own but in pondering the example it sets for his successors, we are gravely concerned.  Suppose our next Secretary of State denies the existence of the holocaust, regardless of the reader’s age.  Suppose our next Secretary of State is one who thinks the history of black people is not material to our well-being.  Suppose our next Secretary of State reveals himself to be fond of Karl Marx and will take money away from libraries that have any capitalist literature.

His announcement of his availability to lead our state is aggressive, antagonistic, and—as it turns out—ill-timed.  He says Missouri is at a “crossroads,” which is certainly true.  We are known as the Center State, with as many states to the north of us as to the south and as many states to the east as to the west.  But he’s not talking geography here. He’s talking about his own party’s failure to make Missouri a one-party state.

And it would not be surprising if some of his fellow Republicans didn’t feel like he’d gut-punched them when he said, “Red states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee, even Indiana and Arkansas have become examples of conservative leadership while Missouri Republicans, who control every statewide office and have supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature have failed to deliver.”

As we recall, Ashcroft wasn’t satisfied last year that Missouri still has two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and wanted new congressional district maps redrawn to reduce that to one by eliminating a district in Kansas City served by Missouri’s current longest-serving African-American congressman.

As for the legislative supermajorities failing to deliver, legislators of the red school might rightfully take umbrage.  They’ve delivered a lot although some of what they’ve delivered has been ruled unconstitutional by courts.

He complains about career politicians who “talk a lot but don’t do a lot.”

The career politician is a frequent target of fervent successor wannabes who have not given us a definition.  Perhaps he’s referring to a career politician such as:

State auditor 1973-1975

State Attorney General 1977-1985

Govenror 1985-1993

  1. S. Senator 1995-2001
  2. S. Attorney General 2001-2005

Yep, Jay Ashcroft knows all about the dangerous career politicians.

He’s also critical of “politicians and lobbyists in Jefferson City [who] slap each other on the back while they give our tax dollars to global corporations, sell out farmland to China, and raise gas taxes on hardworking Missourians.”

Right. Before the recent ten-cent hike (spread over several years) in the gas tax, the latest “big” gas tax hike was a six-center spread through four years (a 55% increase in the then-11-cent per gallon tax) that was proclaimed as “the great economic development tool of the decade” by the then-governor, the career politician described above.

Wonder what dad thinks of the swipe in his son’s candidacy comment.

Give our tax dollars to global corporations?  Several years ago the state cut a big tax deal with a company called Ford to keep it building trucks here. Ford’s pretty global. There are no doubt other examples that don’t jump immediately to mind of such irresponsible use of our tax dollars.

Selling our farmland to China? How about leasing it?  Bad idea, too?

Don’t be too critical with your mouth full. Smithfield Foods, owned by a company in Hong Kong—that’s in China, you know—owns eleven of Missouri’s biggest concentrated animal feeding operations and hires hundreds of Missourians to work those operations or process the meat they produce.

His announcement reiterates a commonly-heard GOP claim that, “It is the very rare occasion if ever, that the state spends its money better than families that it’s taken that money from.”  There’s a lot of validity in that claim if you think social services, criminal justice, education, and our infrastructure can be financed with car washes and cookie sales while taxpayers keep their money and buy a new big-screen teevee.

His comment that Missouri Republicans have failed to make Missouri more like red states of Florida, Texas, TENNESSEE, Indiana, and Arkansas could not have been more poorly timed, coming about the same time the Republicans in the Tennessee legislature expelled two black Democrats who had joined a protest that interrupted a house session, while keeping a white representative (by one vote) who was part of the protest, too.

If Florida is going to be an example, does this mean Jay Ashcroft will take over Worlds of Fun if it disagrees with his political philosophy?

This critical examination of the words used in announcing his political intentions leaves this observer of the passing scene uncomfortable after reading his idealistic words reported by Missouri Independent in its story on his announcement:

“It helps that I was raised with the understanding that people being involved in politics is normal, that elected officials aren’t special. I was raised to understand that it’s about public service, that it’s everyday human beings that are willing to give up their life to serve other people and to make a difference in the lives of current generations and future generations.”

That is an honorable statement. I’ve heard his career politician father say the same sort of thing. But I am left wondering how to reconcile this kind of idealism with his angry, aggressive, antagonistic, and unsettling statement of candidacy.

Which is the real Jay Ashcroft? Which one should I believe in?

-0-

*John Sappington Marmaduke (1885-died in office 1887) was the son of Meredith Miles Marmaduke, who served the last ninet months of Thomas Reynolds’ term after he committed suicide February 9, 1844.