Steve Flowers: Questionable political appointments nothing new
In Alabama politics, many times appointments to political offices filled by an acting governor have an adverse effect on that appointee if and when they seek election to that office for a full term. Every time George Wallace appointed someone to a political post, even in the prime of his popularity and power, they invariably lost in the next election. Well folks, ole Dr. Bentley ain’t George Wallace and his appointment of Luther Strange to the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions may come back to haunt Big Luther. His appointment is even more problematic due to the appearance of collusion surrounding the appointment. The taint of the Bentley appointment hovers over Big Luther’s tall head in Washington. Lyndon Johnson had a similar cloud over his head when he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 1948. It was known that he had stolen the Texas Senate seat when he arrived. When that U.S. Senate seat came open, he made the decision to roll the dice and go for broke. Lyndon did not know that the legendary governor, Coke Stevenson, would enter the race Coke Stevenson was a legendary Texas icon. He was the epitome of a Texas gentleman and revered. He was Texas’ Horatio Alger and Davy Crockett combined. He raised himself from age 12, built a ranching empire, was Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and a very popular Governor of Texas. Stevenson was above reproach. He would not lie, steal or cheat and Texans knew that about old Coke. On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson had already earned the reputation in Texas that he would continue to earn in Washington — he would do whatever it took to win. He was totally corrupt and ruthless without any semblance of a conscience. Johnson applied modern day politics to that era. He introduced polling and what it meant in detail. He even used a helicopter to fly from town-to-town and land on court squares to speak and shake hands, but mostly he used negative and false campaign mailings to attempt to destroy Stevenson’s stellar reputation. Stevenson was from a different era. He refused to go negative and would not reply to any negative accusations no matter how maliciously false. Johnson was able to utilize this massive media blitz because he had more campaign funds than any candidate in Texas history. He had unlimited financial backing from the giant Brown and Root Company of Texas, which is now Halliburton Corporation. They were then, as they are now, the recipients of gigantic government construction contracts. Johnson was their boy and would do their bidding as their senator so they poured money into the race like water. Johnson outspent Stevenson 10-1, but it was not enough. When the votes were counted on election night, Stevenson had won by a narrow margin. However, the election was not over; Stevenson was about to be counted out. The Rio Grande Valley along the Texas and Mexican border was known as the region where votes could be bought. Most close elections were decided in these counties, which would come in days after the original count with just the right number of votes needed to win the election. This is how Johnson won by only 87 votes in a race where over 1 million votes were cast. Johnson became known as “Landslide Lyndon” in Washington because of this 87-vote victory. It was also an allusion to how he had stolen the seat. Some people think that the nickname “Landslide Lyndon” stems from Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race, but it was actually from the 1948 Texas Senate race. A legendary tale that is attributed to Johnson in this infamous race claims that in the days following the election, while garnering enough votes for victory, Johnson and the political bosses of the Valley counties were going through cemeteries and taking names of dead Mexicans off the tombstones to register voters. They could not decipher one of the names and asked Lyndon what to do, Johnson quickly replied, “Give him a name, he’s got as much right to vote as the rest of them in this cemetery.” See you next week ••• Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state Legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Darryl Paulson: On Neil Gorsuch; both parties should just grow up!
Until 1987, presidential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court were respectfully received and reviewed by the U.S. Senate. In 1986, Antonin Scalia, a judicial conservative and constitutional originalist, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a vacancy on the court. He was confirmed 98 to 0 by the U.S. Senate. The confirmation process imploded in 1987 when another Reagan nominee to the court, Robert Bork, was subject to such a vicious attack concerning his record and judicial temperament, that the word “borking” became part of the political lexicon. To be “borked” was to be the subject of a public character assassination. Since the defeat of Judge Bork in 1987, the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has become bitter and brutal. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated the highly-qualified jurist Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy due to the death of Scalia. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings on the Garland nomination, arguing that it should be left to the next president. Democrats were outraged by the treatment of Garland and are taking out their anger by attempting to defeat President Donald Trump‘s nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Democrats contend that Gorsuch’s views are out of the mainstream and accuse him of favoring corporations over workers. They also argue that he fails to fully defend the right to vote and favors the “powerful candidate interests over the rights of all Americans.” Republicans respond by asking how, if Gorsuch’s views were so extreme, did he win confirmation on a 98 to 0 vote 10 years ago, when he was seated on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. Would not some of those senators have opposed his extreme views when first nominated? Not only that, but the American Bar Association (ABA) told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Gorsuch received its “well qualified” rating, the highest rating available from the ABA. Nancy Scott Dogan of the ABA said, “We do not give the “well qualified” rating lightly.” So, why does the ABA see Judge Gorsuch in such a different light than Democrats in the Senate? Republicans want to confirm Gorsuch for several reasons. With the death of Justice Scalia, Gorsuch would likely carry on his conservative views. For quite some time, the court has been divided between four conservatives, four liberals and the swing vote of Justice Kennedy. The Republicans and Trump also need a political victory. The Republican failure to “repeal and replace” Obamacare was a deep political blow to the party and its president. President Trump, who promised his supporters that they would “get tired of winning,” are beginning to wonder what happened to all those promised wins. Democrats want to defeat Gorsuch as political payback for the treatment of Garland, and also to make amends for Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton. In addition, Democrats want a second major defeat of Trump after he failed to secure passage of the Republican health care plan. Democratic activists do not want their elective officials to give 1 inch to the Republicans. In 2005, the “Gang of 14” senators from both parties reached an agreement to prevent an impasse over judicial nominations. The filibuster and 60 vote requirement would continue for Supreme Court nominees, but a simple majority would be needed for other nominations. Since Republican outnumber Democrats 52 to 48 in the Senate, eight Democrats must support Gorsuch for him to be confirmed. So far, no Democrat has indicated support for Gorsuch. As a result, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is threatening to use the “nuclear option.” The “nuclear option” would allow the Senate to approve a change in the filibuster rule to require a simple majority of the Senate, or 51 votes, to confirm a Supreme Court appointee. To change the filibuster rules only requires 51 votes. If Democrats are successful in their filibuster against Gorsuch, it will be the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in over 50 years when the Senate rejected President Lyndon Johnson‘s selection of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice. According to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a successful Democratic filibuster would mean “that qualifications no longer matter.” A candidate unanimously confirmed to the Court of Appeals a decade ago and one who has received the highest rating from the ABA is not suitable for the court. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of only three senators still left who brokered the “Gang of 14” deal, is keeping the door open to use the nuclear option. As a firm believer in the rules and traditions of the Senate, Collins argues that “it would be unfair if we cannot get a straight up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch.” But then, it was only a year ago, that Obama and the Democrats were making the same argument on behalf of Merrick Garland. If only one of the two parties could grow up! ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
Donald Trump looking to Sarah Huckabee Sanders in tough moments
Faced with aggressive on-air questioning about the president’s wiretapping claims, Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn’t flinch, she went folksy. Speaking to George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” she pulled out a version of an old line from President Lyndon Johnson: “If the president walked across the Potomac, the media would be reporting that he could not swim.” The 34-year-old spokeswoman for President Donald Trump was schooled in hardscrabble politics — and down-home rhetoric — from a young age by her father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Her way with a zinger — and her unshakable loyalty to an often unpredictable boss — are big reasons why the deputy press secretary is a rising star in Trump’s orbit. In recent weeks, Sanders has taken on a notably more prominent role in selling Trump’s agenda, including on television and at White House press briefings. As White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s public profile has fluctuated in recent weeks amid criticism of his performance, Sanders has increasingly become a chief defender of Trump in some of his toughest moments. Sanders’ rise has fueled speculation that she’s becoming the president’s favored articulator, a notion she disputes. “It’s hard for any one person to maintain a schedule of being the singular face all day every day,” she said. She argued that more than one press aide spoke for President Barack Obama. “When Eric Schultz went on TV did anybody say Josh Earnest is getting fired?” Sanders asked. “Was that story ever written?” Spicer echoed that message: “My goal is to use other key folks in the administration and the White House to do the shows.” Indeed, speaking on behalf of this president is a challenging and consuming job. Trump often presents his own thoughts directly on Twitter in the early hours of the morning and is known to closely follow his surrogates on television, assessing their performances. He has been happy with Sanders’ advocacy, said Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president. “She understands America. She understands the president. And she understands how to connect the two,” said Conway, who noted that Sanders had appeared on television throughout the campaign as well. “The president has a great deal of trust in Sarah.” On some days recently Sanders has been the administration’s messenger of choice, even when news outlets aren’t thrilled. Last Sunday, NBC’s Chuck Todd said on-air that “Meet the Press” had sought a “senior administration official or a Cabinet secretary,” but that the “White House offered a deputy press secretary. And so we declined.” Sanders credits her larger-than-life dad with helping her learn how to deliver a message. Huckabee, a frequent political commentator, has long been famed for his pithy rhetoric. The two speak most mornings before 6 a.m. “I’ll call and say, ‘What do you think if I say this?’ He’ll say, ‘That’s really good. You might try to say it a little bit more like X,’” she said. On advocating for the unconventional Trump, Sanders admits that even in the press office, they don’t always get a heads up before Trump tweets. But she says part of Trump’s appeal is that he “directly communicates with the American people on a regular basis.” Arkansas-raised, Sanders moved her young family to Washington to be part of the administration. She is married to a Republican consultant and they have three young children. She joined the Trump campaign not long after her father’s second presidential bid — which she managed — fizzled out in the 2016 Iowa caucuses. She said she was drawn to Trump’s message of economic populism and his outsider attitude. “One of the big things my dad was running on was changing Washington, breaking that cycle,” Sanders said. “I felt like the outsider component was important and I thought he had the ability to actually win and defeat Hillary.” She also said she was drawn to the Trump family’s close involvement in the campaign, “having kind of been in the same scenario for my dad’s campaign.” Being part of an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton had extra significance for Sanders, whose father entered the Arkansas governor’s mansion just a few years after Bill Clinton exited and who shared advisers and friends in the state. Sanders said at times it was difficult to be aggressive, but she “so disagreed” with Hillary Clinton’s policies, that she kept on. Sanders entered politics young, helping with her father’s campaigns as a child and then working her way up the ranks until she had the top job in 2016. In 2007, she moved to Iowa to run her father’s operation in the leadoff caucus state, where he was the surprise winner. She has also served in the Education Department under President George W. Bush and worked on a number of Senate and presidential campaigns. Mike Huckabee said his daughter was always a natural. “When most kids at 7 or 8 are jumping rope, she’s sitting at the kitchen table listening to Dick Morris doing cross tabs on statewide polls,” said Huckabee, referring to the adviser-turned-adversary to President Bill Clinton. Those Arkansas ties continue to hold strong. Sanders has consulted with friends from the state about her new role, including Mack McLarty, the former Clinton chief of staff, who she said counseled her to appreciate the “historic opportunity” to work in the White House. Her rising profile has come with ups and downs. Sanders says she is turning off social media alerts because she has been flooded with criticism. For now, she has not been treated to a portrayal on “Saturday Night Live” — like Spicer and Conway. But her dad says that if that comes next, she should roll with it. “One of the great honors of life is to be parodied,” Huckabee said. “It’s kind of an indication that you’ve arrived at a place of real power.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Martin Dyckman: Politics mars the Supreme Court nomination process
The maxim that “no good deed goes unpunished” is often borne out in politics these days, and if President Barack Obama hasn’t taped it to his shaving mirror, he should. In Merrick Garland, he found an ideal Supreme Court candidate, one whom, were the present roles reversed, a Republican president might have nominated and a Democratic Senate would have been obliged to confirm. His credentials are impeccable: Ivy League degrees. Clerkships at a Court of Appeals and at the Supreme Court. Antitrust practice in one of Washington’s blue ribbon firms. Distinguished service in the Justice Department, where he supervised the investigations and prosecutions of the Kansas City, Unabomber and Atlanta Olympics bombings. A centrist record in nearly 20 years as a judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he is now the chief judge, and where he befriended John Roberts, the current chief justice of the United States. Garland is known as a diligent scholar who respects Supreme Court precedents, strives for consensus, and writes opinions that are “models of judicial craftsmanship,” according to Adam Liptak of the New York Times. Seven still-serving Republican senators supported Garland’s confirmation to the Circuit Court in 1997. Among them is Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was quoted in 2010 as saying Garland would have made a “consensus nominee” for the Supreme Court and dropped his name after Antonin Scalia died. Now, the oleaginous Hatch is saying “Let the voters decide,” as if they didn’t already do that when they re-elected Obama. At 63, Garland is a decade older than the usual Supreme Court nominee. The not-so-subtle message to the Senate majority is that a future Republican president might be able to fill the seat sooner than any Democrat might anticipate replacing Roberts. Despite all that, Senate Republicans are still refusing a hearing on the nomination and most aren’t even willing to meet with Garland privately. They’re holding out in the hope that a Republican will be elected in November to nominate a conspicuous reactionary like Scalia. In so doing, they’re catering to the Koch brothers, the NRA, and other elements of the rabid right that actively oppose Garland. What they might get instead, of course, is the nomination of someone younger and more liberal if a new Democratic president finds Scalia’s seat still vacant. While praising Garland’s qualifications and calling on the Senate to act, Hillary Clinton has been notably silent about whether she would resubmit his name in January 2017. As for Bernie Sanders, he too has demanded the Senate act on the nomination, which he said he would vote to confirm. But he also said explicitly that if it does not, he would ask Obama to withdraw it so that he could nominate someone considered to be more progressive. Both he and Clinton are open about wanting the court to overturn the Citizens United decision, which she said would be a criterion for any justice she might appoint. That’s where Obama must truly feel punished. Although the Democratic Party, most of its candidates and virtually all their center and left-of-center supporters are making hay — i.e., campaign contributions — out of the Senate majority’s position, their enthusiasm for Garland himself is notably muted. Jeffrey Toobin, the New Yorker’s eminent authority on the Supreme Court, took note of this in writing that Obama’s choice reflected not only his “boundless faith in the meritocracy” but also his “distaste for the vulgar realities of politics.” He could, Toobin continued, “have chosen a nominee who would rally his core supporters, and thus assist his party in races up and down the ballot.” The short-listed candidates included a woman, an African-American and an immigrant from India who are respected judges. But, says Toobin, “this President prefers technocrats to Democrats.” That said, Toobin thinks it is “outrageous,” and I agree, for the Senate to act as if Obama were re-elected for only three years rather than four. In signaling to their core voters — and more importantly, their allied lobbies — that the election will be in large part about the future of the Supreme Court, the Republicans have also made that quite clear to Democrats and independents. Fair enough. Vote Democratic as if your life depends on it, because it does. Although there have been three Democratic presidents since Lyndon Johnson, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republican appointees since Warren Burger replaced Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1969. It would still be so even if Garland is confirmed. Interestingly, Republican presidents have been almost as much in thrall of the meritocracy as Bill Clinton and Obama have been. Like Scalia and Garland, every present justice has an Ivy League law degree — all from Harvard, like Obama himself, or from Yale, like Clinton, except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who started at Harvard and finished at Columbia. Moreover, the last justice who wasn’t Ivy League was Sandra Day O’Connor, also the last who ever had experience as an elected politician. O’Connor’s service in the Arizona Senate informed her vital role as a consensus builder and frequent deciding vote on the Supreme Court. The present court’s deficiency in that regard is reflected in the frequent 5-4 splits over hot-button political issues such as Obamacare and campaign finance. This is a condition that impairs the legitimacy of the court in the public’s eyes. Imagine if Brown v. Board of Education, the historic decision against racial segregation in public school, had been decided by anything less than a unanimous vote. Warren’s great service to his country, reflecting his background as California’s attorney general and governor, was to write the opinion in such a way as to ensure that it would be unanimous. He wasn’t Ivy League either, by the way. His law degree was from the University of California at Berkeley. *** Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He lives in suburban Asheville, North Carolina.
Darryl Paulson: Conventions have been disrupted by credentials, rules, platforms
(Second of three parts) Political parties have held conventions in America since 1824. Many aspects of the convention have changed little in almost two centuries. This year, because the Summer Olympics are being held in August, both major parties will conduct their convention in July, with Republicans going first in Cleveland and Democrats following in Philadelphia. The first televised convention took place in 1940 when New York City’s NBC affiliate broadcast the Republican convention in Philadelphia. The other major networks quickly joined in and provided gavel-to-gavel coverage. As John Chancellor of NBC noted in 1972, “convention coverage is the most important thing we do. The conventions are not just political theater, but really serious stuff.” That attitude changed by 2004, when all the major networks cut back their coverage to several hours at night. As early as 1996, the networks were complaining that little of substance takes place. Ted Koppel, host of ABC’s Nightline, announced in 1996 that he was going home because the Republican Convention “is more of an infomercial than a news event.” What changed? It is true that many of the conventions of the 1940s through the 1970s made for great television. Platform fights were common, sometimes leading to a walkout of delegates. Just as explosive were fights over rules changes and the city of delegates. What made for good television, made for bad election results for the parties. They did not want to project an image of a divided party to the American electorate. Both parties instituted rules that made conventions less dramatic. The party image improved, but television now found conventions bland. During the first two days of the convention, the delegates decide on credentials, rules and the party platform. The credentials process determines the seating of state delegations and resolves any challenges to their legitimacy. The major credentials challenge in modern political history took place at the 1964 Democratic Convention. Two delegations from Mississippi both claimed to be the legitimate one. One delegation was the traditional, all-white Democratic delegation. No blacks were members or even allowed to participate in the selection of delegates. The other delegation came from the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), which was open to both whites and blacks. The MFDP argued that its members should be seated because the party was open to all races, supported the party platform and backed the election of Lyndon Johnson. Many in the all-white delegation opposed the platform and its civil rights plank, and many supported Republican Barry Goldwater for president. Johnson selected his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, to negotiate a solution. Humphrey’s solution was to seat the all-white delegation and several members of the MFDP. At all future Democratic conventions, race couldn’t be a factor in selecting delegates. Like most compromises, neither side was pleased. Platforms have often produced divided conventions. At the 1948 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, the delegates narrowly approved a stronger civil rights plank introduced by Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey. Southern Democrats walked out and met several weeks later in Alabama and selected South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond to lead the Dixiecrats. Democrats feared that the split would cause Harry Truman to lose to Republican New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, but Truman won by a slim margin. The 1964 Republican platform led to a split between the moderate and conservative wings of the party. When the Goldwater forces defeated a moderate civil-rights plank by a 2-1 margin, it was clear that the Republican Party had moved to the right. Disputes over party rules have also led to disastrous conventions. In 1968, there were only 15 party primaries for the Democrats. Party committees or party leaders chose most delegates. The party leaders selected Humphrey and not the anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. In response to the 1968 fiasco in Chicago, the Democrats formed the McGovern-Fraser Committee to revise convention rules. The committee recommended that in the future, most delegates must be selected in primaries or caucuses, and that the delegates had to mirror the population of the state they represented. McGovern would be the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972. Some found it more than coincidental that the person who wrote the rules changes became the next nominee. Many Democrats considered McGovern too radical to win, and “ABM” committees (Anybody but McGovern) sprang up to oppose him. His opponents tried to stop McGovern by denying him all of California’s delegates that he won in a winner-take-all primary. The effort failed, but in retaliation, McGovern forces challenged Mayor Richard Daley‘s Chicago delegation as not meeting the diversity requirements. Daley and the other 58 members of the Chicago delegation were thrown out of the convention and replaced by a diverse slate elected by no one. For probably the first time in his life, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Mike Royko supported Daley. Royko said the new delegates contained only one Italian and three Poles. “Your reforms,” wrote Royko, “have disenfranchised Chicago’s white ethnic Democrats, which is a strange reform.” After McGovern lost 49 of the 50 states to Richard Nixon, the Democrats were back in the reform mode. This time, they created over 700 “super-delegates” who were party officials and elected Democrats who would be guaranteed seats at the convention and help to select the most “winnable” Democrat. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination because she has the overwhelming support of super-delegates, look for Democrats to once again reform their rules. Republicans would never do that. They are still following the rules their grandparents made. (Tomorrow: Donald Trump needs 498 more delegates to avoid contested convention.) *** Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg. He can be reached at darryl.paulson@gmail.com.
