The Judge Report

Somewhere around three centuries ago a branch of the Going family left Ireland for Australia and later wandered over to New Zealand where they encountered Mormon missionaries, sometime in the 19th century, and converted.  One of them ended up in southern California a few miles from my brother.

Our branch of the family settled in Upstate New York in the mid-19th century, less than three hours via the Thruway from Palmyra where Joseph Smith began the whole thing, but the Mormons had gone by then and we missed the whole thing. 

The better part of thirty years ago the last Going in Ireland, also Robert, put me in touch with the old fellow in California, Lionel Going, and we kept up a lively correspondence for a while.  If you like genealogy, and it’s one of my favorite hobbies, there’s nothing like having a Mormon 12th cousin, and Lionel Going was invaluable in my research, sending me acres of hand-written charts.

Along the way he also let me borrow original manuscripts of both his and his wife’s autobiographies, and they were fascinating.

Mrs. Lionel Going, then pushing 90, as I recall, had been born into a polygamous Mormon sect in Mexico.  Part of the deal for Utah entering the Union involved giving up polygamy, and those who held to it as an article of faith fled the country and managed to live unbothered south of the border.  Another child born into that sect was George Romney, whose monogamous parents returned to the United States at the time of the Mexican Revolution.

George, of course, grew up to run (and rescue) American Motors and got himself elected Governor of Michigan.  He was, in the parlance of the time, a “me too” Republican, that is, essentially a Democrat in philosophy who knew how to run things better.

In 1964 he became a stalwart in the STOP GOLDWATER movement, in which a triad of big state liberal Republicans, Romney, Nelson Rockefeller of New York and William Scranton of Pennsylvania, pooled their resources in an attempt to prevent the conservatives from taking over the Republican Party, caused a ruckus at the convention in San Francisco, walked out while Goldwater was speaking and then sat on their hands in the fall.

I may have been only thirteen at the time, but I sure recognized that George Romney was not a guy I had any use for.  He was not only belligerently anti-conservative, but humorless as well, a handsome man to be sure, but with all the charm of John Kerry.

He was the leading candidate of the “moderates” for the 1968 election (Rocky was lurking in the background hedging his bets, several times announcing his “active non-candidacy”), but blew it all in a famous flip-flopping double-barreled  suicide  when he announced his opposition to the war in Vietnam, claiming that his previous support had been due  to “brainwashing” by the generals.

A compassionate Richard Nixon rescued him from total oblivion by making him Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a position for which he was well-suited.

***********

So what’s all this have to do with his son Mitt? 

Well, I’m just outlining my prejudices so you know where I’m coming from.  I’m no natural fan of the Romney family.

Clearly the administrative skills of the father were inherited by the son.  Mitt Romney’s ability to muscle the Olympic bureaucracy for the Salt Lake City games demonstrated mastery bordering on genius.  The political skills honed there served him well in Massachusetts, a state  where it’s hard to put together a dinner party if you’re only inviting Republicans.

Mitt is comfortable with today’s conservatives, though personally I don’t consider him “one of us” in the sense that there are quite a few clearly defined “movement conservatives” who, though disagreeing on any number of things, lend a hand to each other with various causes and certainly recognize each other as natural allies.

Romney, I think, is more of a loner than a joiner.  He is certainly conservative in temperament, values, virtues and for the most part philosophy. He has leadership skills, but he is not a Conservative Leader, in the sense of a Taft, Buckley, Goldwater and certainly Reagan. 

One can imagine him running the federal government competently, but not making the major changes or waves that some of us would like to see.  He’s really just a friendlier version of the old man, tolerant and maybe even affectionate toward the conservative wing of the party, but not of it.

No problem voting for him in November, and nobody would look more like a president than Mitt, but for right now I don’t think he makes my top three.

This is where I met Rudy Giuliani on November 11, 2001, at Ground Zero. I’m somewhere in the lower right, I think.  The occasion was a tribute to all the nations who lost citizens on September 11, something like 92 as I recall.  The Secretary General of the UN was there, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, numerous ambassadors, New York’s two senators, including her, the Governor and the President of the United States.

We were the receiving line. They came to shake our hands.

President Bush was most gracious and took his time with everyone, as did Governor Pataki.  Rudy followed, friendly, relaxed and considerate.  He signed my hardhat, right where I wanted: over a photo-sticker of those guys raising the flag.  It remains one of my proudest possessions.

Whether I end up voting for Rudy or not, I have long been a fan, going back to his days as District Attorney in Queens.  Better never try to tell him that something can’t be done.  He took on the Mafia, for crying out loud.

I remember New York City before Giuliani.  He changed it utterly.  Today it is one of my very favorite places to visit.  Those who pooh-pooh his involvement and deny him the credit he is due are self-delusioned idiots.

Oh, he’s done some things to annoy the hell out of me from time to time. He’s that kind of guy, after all.  He never seemed particularly interested in advancing the Republican Party beyond himself in New York City, but then there weren’t too many elected Republicans in city government once you got past the mayor.

I sure wish he was truer to his church’s teachings on life issues.  I don’t think, though, that I imagined the twinkle in his eye at Cardinal O’Connor’s funeral when Cardinal Law praised O’Connor’s defense of human life from conception to natural death, a remark which caused a thunderous standing ovation which Rudy joined in way ahead of the squirming Clintons in front of him. 

But he hasn’t been good on that issue, and that means a lot to me.  Of course, his duty as president would only rarely coincide with life issues, and then primarily in the selection of judges, and on that score I like the kind of judges he likes, and I trust his sincerity in that regard.  So as far as that goes he is not a typical liberal Republican, certainly not in the mold of Rockefeller or Lindsay or Gerald R. Ford.

On economics and trade and defense and foreign policy, he’s pretty dead on with conservative principles.  On immigration, a bit all over the lot.  As are most of the candidates.

He’s articulate and a proven leader.  He eclipsed every politician in America after 9/11.  His calm, steady hand at the helm kept us together, and not only kept his city from falling apart, but brought it back to life.

He may not end up being my first choice, but there is a whole lot that I like, and if he makes it through the nomination process I will have no trouble in the slightest pulling his lever.

He may not be the guy you want on the news every night for four or eight years, but if there is a crisis, there’s no man in America I would feel safer with.

The Republican nominating process is getting more and more interesting as it’s getting more and more splintered. The early caucus/primaries  (when the country is not yet fully focused) and the compressed primary season, lead to the real possibility of the first genuinely brokered Republican convention in my lifetime.

Brokered conventions used to be the norm, back when state party leaders would actually get together and decide the nominees.  Classic examples from both parties are found in David Pietrusza’s excellent 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents.

Back in the olden days, there were only a handful of primaries, which provided some interest and momentum, but rarely decided the final outcome.  There were close conventions in 1952 and 1976, and Nixon’s 1968 nomination wasn’t  entirely in the bag until convention time, but those were at most two or possibly three-men races at the end.  Today we have so many cross-currents pushing and shoving their way through the Republican coalition that anything can happen. 

The sudden surge for Huckabee seems to be fueled mostly by Baptists and Evangelicals flocking to one of their own, much as they ran to Jimmy Carter in 1976, ignoring some of his less than conservative positions.  Romney’s strong in a lot of places, and should get a fair lift from New Hampshire, but maybe he just ends up as a regional candidate.  Rudy leads the field in the polls nationally, and will doubtless carry quite a few delegates from the northeast and Florida and some other places.  McCain has enough strength to carry a few states. Fred Thompson should catch on here and there. 

You want a pro-life candidate, you skip Giuliani, unless you want strict-constructionist judges, in which case you  will actually support Rudy if you trust Ted Olson’s opinion, and I generally do, except that Robert Bork says Romney’s the guy, but you may be worried about his flip-flopping and besides Thompson has the Right to Life endorsement and McCain’s record is quite acceptable in that area, but he formed the gang of 14 which may have messed up getting some better judges and some of the professional evangelicals don’t like him because, well, he doesn’t particularly like them, and then there’s all those other guys.

If defense is your big issue you might go with Rudy because of his leadership and proven skills and pretty clear-headed foreign policy, or McCain because of his experience or Romney because he’s got executive ability, or Thompson because he’s articulate and knows his way around a submarine. You’d probably avoid Huckabee unless you’re an evangelical and Ron Paul’s not on your radar.

Like supply side economics? You’ve got Rudy, except he’s from New York, McCain, except he voted against the tax cuts though he opposes repealing them, but wants to rein in spending, which is ok, and Thompson.  Romney’s record is hard to figure, since he governed Massachusetts with a democratic legislature. Not saying he wouldn’t be good, just no way to demonstrate it.

Hate McCain-Feingold enough to decide your vote? Well, McCain’s not for you and Thompson voted for it.

Immigration your issue? Take your pick. lots of nuances, not a whole lot of demonstrated conviction.

I just don’t see the scenario where one of these guys suddenly pulls way ahead of the pack.  And if no one pulls ahead, everyone stays in, one way or another.

And why not?  If the convention goes multiple ballots, all bets are off and the real give and take begins.

So now maybe it comes down to who impresses the heck out of the delegates at convention time.  Who is their second choice if their first choice falters?  How many of the delegates are driven by ideology and how many are party “professionals”?  How high do the negatives get?

The latter is a real concern, because the rough and tumble of this election is already taking its toll, and things are being said about each other that will not be forgotten next summer, even if necessity makes strange bedfellows.

And maybe it will just come down to the state of the world at the time of the convention. 

It’s early, but my guess at this point is that a brokered convention favors Fred Thompson.  He’s likable, strong, in tune with the major branches of the coalition, and not making too many enemies. 

If Mr. Pietrusza can take a few minutes away from his upcoming book on the 1960 election, I’d be interested in whether he sees a comparison to the 1920 Harding strategy.  And I’d like to hear from the rest of you, too.

Let’s face it: there are quite a few annoying things about John McCain, and some of them are good and sound reasons why he should not be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

For example, he talks too much.

There are times when it seems like he is on every single radio and television news and comment show every single day.  He expresses an animated opinion about everything.  Too much. Too much.

Of course, I’ve never spent five and a half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp.  Nor do I know what it’s like going years with no one to speak to, trying to work out tapping signals in Morse Code just so you can maintain the barest semblance of sanity and social connection.  I suppose if I had, I might be able to appreciate a guy who exercises his right to free speech even more than I do.  I suppose that for him just being able to open his mouth must be a never-ending thrill.

But he’s stiff.

Yeah, well, I guess having your shoulders smashed to smithereens by your captors and your legs broken and knees shattered and being routinely beaten three times a week, that can make you a little stiff.

Too old. 

He’s always looked too old. Must be that white hair that grew in when his torturers left him for dead.

Divorced and remarried.

His Penelope waited for him all those years, all those years when they should have been growing together and instead, through no fault of their own, they grew in separate ways.  He reached his mid-life crisis with a long period of lost youth behind him.  I think maybe we can avoid judging him too much on that one.

McCain-Feingold: bad law.  It is. It really is.  Bad judgment on his part, thinking he can reform a corrupt system of pay to play that’s been going on for centuries.  Instead of making things right, all they did was open up new ways to pass the sleaze.  Mr Hsu and his pals, for example.  In the process, the first amendment is trampled upon.  Of course, in McCain’s world trying to make politics honest is a good thing, and I’m sure that’s what he thought he was doing.  I won’t hold it against him very much.

He’s wrong on immigration. 

He has a very real position on immigration, one he’s willing to vote for, one he believes in.  He’s wrong, but I have to say I admire, truly admire his willingness to fight for what he believes in, even in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval, especially among Republican primary voters.  He was willing to let his poll numbers tank on an issue that he wasn’t going to win anyway.  That’s character, I’m pretty sure.

Likewise, while other politicians are sucking up to the locals in Iowa, McCain is telling them that farm subsidies are not good for America.

*******

I’m not voting for McCain.  There are many good reasons not to.

I’m just starting to forget what they are.

It’s really the strangest thing.  I haven’t changed all that much in recent years in philosophy or outlook.  And yet, less than four years ago I was gung-ho for a person who I thought would be a fairly obvious candidate for president, one whose life story, guts and patriotism would bring her right to the top and in the process change America forever.

Then she became Secretary of State and instead Condoleezza Rice faded from the political scene forever.

How is this possible?  Even if she lacked the burning desire for the office, wouldn’t she at least be talked up as the one who got away? Her predecessor, Colin Powell, made something of a career out of being a non-candidate.

But Condi? She holds the most important appointed position in the most important government on the face of the earth during a critical period of war and peace, and there is NOBODY saying “DRAFT RICE!”  It was not all that long ago that Dick Morris wrote a book predicting the big show down between Hillary and Condi.  The scenario seems almost laughable now.

What happened?

A big part of it, I think, is that she is perceived to have risen a step too high for her talents.  I don’t know whether that’s fair, but she certainly hasn’t left  a deep impression of having brought the world or even her department under control.  Her initiatives have been both over-reaching and under-achieving.  Perhaps if she had not played with such high expectations, the lack of results would not have seemed so obvious.  But that’s all part of the diplomacy game, a game that a president needs to be able to play, and one in which she has displayed startling ineptitude.

Which brings me to another big point.  When, in anyone’s political memory, has there been a presidential election in which absolutely no one associated with the incumbent administration is even being considered for the job?  I’m not talking only about major figures like the Vice President. I’m talking NOBODY, not even a candidate polling at .0003.

George W. Bush has headed the Republican Party for seven years and there is absolutely no Bush bench. Zero.

We have lots of competent people running, but not one served as so much as a file clerk in this administration.

Even in the closest historical parallel I can think of, the Democrats in 1952 when incumbent Harry Truman dropped out after being upset in the New Hampshire primary by Estes Kefauver, 74 year old Vice President Alben Barkley was still gathering votes at the wide-open convention and Truman was still a major mover and shaker behind the scenes.

No, I think this election is without precedent, and it is truly the strangest thing.

Herewith some thoughts on the race for the presidency, 2008 edition, coming soon to a voting booth near you.

I’m a political junkie.  The first election I can recall was when I was 5 in 1956.  By 1958 I was waking up the morning after election day and asking Dad who had won the election for Governor.  “Brown!” he spat out bitterly, which I though odd at the time since the race was between Nelson Rockefeller and Averill Harriman.  (I was many years a grownup before I realized he had been commenting on the California race, where his hero Bill Knowland had gone down).

By 1960, all of nine, I was having my picture taken with Vice President Nixon at the Schenectady Airport.  In 1964 I participated in Goldwater Victory Parades, made phone calls, and handed out copies of None Dare Call It Treason in front of Johnson-Humphrey-Kennedy headquarters on East Main Street.

I worked on the Buckley for Senate campaigns (met him and most of his siblings, even took his wife to lunch).  In 1976 I followed Reagan around New Hampshire for a couple of days, and by 1980 got myself elected in a contested race as a delegate to the Republican National Convention, where I met all kinds of famous people.  Al D’Amato even hung with us.

And now here we are again with the voting about to start and I have to confess that this political junkie has not watched a single debate. Oh, I’ve followed them well enough.  I read the reports and analyses. I know what the candidates have been saying and not saying. I just haven’t felt the slightest urge to actually WATCH them do it. Not once.

And so I had to go to Google Images tonight for this:

Yeah.

This guy has snuck into the top tier of Republican candidates for president and I didn’t have the slightest idea what he looks like.  That’s Mike Huckabee from Hope, Arkansas, they say. He used to be Governor. Or he is Governor. I don’t even know.

So here’s my theory:  If Mr Judge Political Junkie has no idea what Mike Huckabee looks like, how deep can his support really be?  My guess is that he is where he is because of who he is not, not because of who he is or particularly what he says.

I’m told he’s witty and relaxed in the debates. Good. I like that.  I’m told he’s pretty good on life issues and that’s a big plus.  But his tax record ain’t so hot, his trade policy might be deemed demagogic, or the polite word, “Populist”.  Running a corner drug store doesn’t prepare you to be CEO of WalMart as H. Ross Perot once said of another Arkansas Governor.

Doesn’t excite me.

Even now that I know what he looks like. 

My prognostiscope says: Can’t Happen.

I read an article recently that proclaimed that Catholics will be the key to the coming presidential election.  “They” almost always back the winner in recent decades. (I’d cite the source, but I’ve laid off all of research assistants and I’m too lazy to look it up).

Personally I find the whole concept a bit hilarious as Catholics are split almost exactly along the national fault lines.  It is rather remarkable, when you think about it, that the most organized, structured, anchored ecclesial body in the country has no more homogeneous political thought than a group of a thousand random citizens, notwithstanding the ability to communicate directly with millions of the flock on a weekly basis.

On the other hand, the decidedly loosely structured religious groups that we tend to lump together with the term “Evangelicals” have the most fantastic underground communication system imaginable and tend to roll together in giant waves unseen by the movers, shakers, plotters and pundits among us.

Hence Pat Robertson, 1988,  Iowa.  Hence Huckabee, virtually unknown outside his own state.  Hence Jimmy Carter, 1976.

I have many friends and a few relatives who are evangelicals and God is the center of their universe and they tend to think of themselves as in the world but not of it.  I tend to feel that way myself, sometimes, and certainly understand and applaud their disdain for the popular culture. 

For good reason they don’t trust a lot of politicians. Neither do I.   And they certainly get turned off by people who do lip service to their various causes and then do nothing at all when they take office.

So, in a “them against us mindset” their natural inclination is to give full support to someone they know to be one of them. 

They carry a lot of clout in elections, and have been voting overwhelmingly with the Republicans.  But individually they are not all conservatives in relation to the broad spectrum of political issues.  Over the years many have been suckers to populist clap-trap.  The rush to Huckabee is frankly a little scary, as the man possesses no obvious attributes that would make you ordinarily think he is qualified for the highest office in the secular world.

Being on God’s side is good. Having Him on your side is good, too.  I tend to view God as a Conservative-Republican Pro-Lfe Catholic Red Sox Fanatic, myself.   I think we believers all like to think of Him as one of us.

But really, that doesn’t mean any one of us is ready to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

So the Holy Family hit the road to get to Bethlehem by Christmas, and arrived just in time.  Nazareth must have been one of those places where everyone comes from somewhere else, and I’ll bet it just emptied out at Christmastime.

 Amsterdam is like Bethlehem.  Nobody lives here anymore, but come Christmas the drifters come back to their roots in droves.  The weekend Masses were packed at St. Mary’s, Palm Sunday packed, and they weren’t even giving anything away and it wasn’t even Christmas yet.  It’s nice seeing old faces.

 It’s the same here at the House of the Judge with the kids all home and  Uncle Sy, of course, and the mother-in-law, and Mary’s sister Flossie and her family up from suburban Philadelphia and meeting Laura Ann for the first time, precious little thing that she is all dressed up in Christmas red.

 This morning Laura saw her first Christmas on George Street dressed with the cutest Santa hat.  After opening presents (can’t wait to watch my DVD of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) the kids all settled on the couch with the Christmas photo album.

Mary has been keeping this every year since we first got married, so once we get these pics developed we’ll have thirty years worth in one place.  They were having a blast remembering this toy and that adventure and the annual photo Christmas cards and the trees that varied dramatically in quality, but never in heart. Our very first tree, in our tiny apartment in Albany, had no lights and home-made ornaments. 

Over the years Mary added more and more of her heart and talent, and then began setting aside some of the decorations for each of the children so when they had their own trees there’d be something of home for them.  Rather reminds me of that friendship bread that people have been passing around for years and years.

***********

We have had the creche out for a few weeks now, without the Baby Jesus, of course.

“Where’s Jesus?” I asked, so we would be ready for the big moment.

“He’s in the liquor cabinet.”

The rascal.

************

One last thought on Advent: there really is a fortune to be made for anyone who can write a decent Advent hymn.  O Come, O Come, Emmanuel is nice, but that’s about it, and that doesn’t cover four weeks and three hymns a Mass very well. There have been other attempts, but they’re forced and sing-songy and just do nothing for me. Come O Most Expensive Jesus comes to mind. (That can’t be right, but unless you sleep through Advent hymns, which I tend to do, you know the one I mean).

Let’s get working on it for next year, ok?

Dear Editor:

 I must say, I just don’t get it.  Why do liberal intellectuals feel threatened by Christmas?  Most of their core constituencies don’t. Certainly African-Americans, Hispanics and blue collar labor unionists are among the most Christmas-loving people around.

 Sure, I appreciate that some of the overly-educated consider the whole Christmas tale a myth, but so what? As myths go, it’s a pretty good one. We’re not talking about monsters and vengeance and people eating their children and stuff like that. We’re talking about a story that has the Creator of the Universe looking down at this tiny spec of a planet that’s filled with worthless and ungrateful people unworthy of His attention, let alone affection, and deciding to become one of us. 

Not as conqueror or king, but as a helpless infant in a smelly old stable relying on mere humans for his help and support.  Then He grows up and teaches us how to act with charity toward one another and if that isn’t enough offers Himself up as the supreme sacrifice for the sins of all mankind.

I happen to believe all that, but even if I didn’t it would still seem pretty wonderful to me.  And I think I would understand why commemorating the moment when the Word became Flesh would be pretty important to most people, and I would hope I would have the good sense to know that when folks said “Merry Christmas” they would be saying something to me that is at once both terribly friendly and awesomely profound.

Robert N. Going