This is a tough column to write because it’s more than pontificating about the political scene. It’s related to politics, but mostly it’s personal.

It’s about moving on, which is not an easy thing to do.

A few days ago, The Donald received the endorsement of The General, Robert Montgomery Knight.

Understand, I have a couple of degrees from IU. I used to bleed cream and crimson. Tuesday and Thursday evenings during basketball season were sacrosanct. Even today, on appropriate occasions, I still bleed cream and crimson, and what with the blood thinners and all, I probably bleed more today than I did back then.

I was a Bobby Knight fan.

I was not blind to his dark side. It is not acceptable to toss chairs on the court in the middle of a game. It is not kosher to punch a policeman in Puerto Rico. On occasion, he could be pretty rough with Chuck Marlowe, his sidekick on the “Bob Knight Show” that ran on local TV for 29 years. I was willing to overlook those peccadilloes because of the other stories about Coach—stories about private kindnesses, his generous support of the IU Library, the fact his players (for the most part) graduated. Even years after their time at IU, the swagger and loyalty of former players who had made it through the Knight system signaled that there was more to the man than his sometimes boorish public manner would suggest.

I didn’t mind the three national championships either.

I was in his corner as the game changed around him. He had problems with the “one and done” attitude of many of the blue chippers. He had trouble recruiting them, and had to make do with what he could get. He still did okay, but the championships quit coming. Most importantly, I think he was unwilling, or unable, to deal with a new generation of players who were equally unwilling, or unable, to accept without question the darker aspects of his tutelage.

When he was forced out of IU, I felt that he had come out on the short end of a power play with a new university president out to prove who was really the biggest, meanest, man on campus. I still feel that way today.

But that was 16 years ago. In his shunning of all things IU, at what point does an understandable feeling of grievance become pathological truculence? After all, the actors in his ouster are long since gone from IU, and in the case of his primary antagonist, dead and buried. What remains constant is the continued support of most of IU Nation.

How has he treated them?

My disillusionment began a few years ago when I attended a Knight appearance at the Honeywell Center in Wabash. He told the old war stories and back stories. Some of his former players were in the audience, and they sparred back and forth. It was nostalgia writ large.

Then came the question-and-answer session.

There was a guy in a wheelchair who literally begged Coach to bury the hatchet and make a return visit to Bloomington. When I say “begged,” I mean if he could have got out of that wheelchair and gone down on his knees, he would have done so.

The former IU coach stalked off the stage without a response.

The final straw came this last season when he failed to show up in Bloomington to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the 1976 undefeated season and national championship.

His players deserved that. IU Nation deserved that.

And now, just like in a good Donald Trump speech, I am going circle back to the original point, The General’s endorsement of The Donald.

It wasn’t the endorsement that frosted me. Sure, I was a bit disappointed that a self-described student of history thought Harry Truman ordered dropping the atomic bomb on Japan in 1944, and in so doing saved billions of American lives. Harry Truman was not the president in 1944. The bomb was not dropped until 1945. There were not then, nor are there now, a billion Americans on the face of the planet. But, hey, maybe I’m just being persnickety about the facts. It isn’t the first time such intellectual sloppiness has happened in this campaign and it won’t be the last.

I don’t mind that the endorsement was for Donald Trump. Their personalities and world view are not that dissimilar.

No, what I found irksome was that a man whose “legendary” status is the result of his time at IU, and the often fanatical support of IU Nation, would spend 16 years shunning the university and disrespecting the fans who made him what he is, and then have the unmitigated gall to come back into the state and trade upon that “legendary” status to presume to tell them how to vote.

We all have our breaking points, and I have reached mine.

Without anger, and with more than a little sadness, it is time to move on.

Have a good life, Coach, but you are no longer part of mine.

Brace yourself. The circus is coming to town, and not the one with cotton candy and peanuts. It’s the Greatest Show on Earth, the nomination of candidates for the presidency of the United States, and there’s something in it for all ages.

What that “something” is is more elusive.

The last time this circus came in all its glory to Indiana was in 2008 and the Democrats were in the center ring as Hillary and Barack wowed the audience. This time, the center ring belongs to the GOP as Ted and Donald and John vie to capture the hearts and imaginations of the Republican faithful in Hoosierland.

The candidates stand to gain or lose the most. Should The Donald win, odds are he has a much clearer path to a first-ballot win in Cleveland, and the Stop Trump movement will just have to come to terms with reality. Should Ted win, the odds of a second or third ballot convention improve, which is the only hope he has left. Should Governor Kasich win, let’s just say the second coming can’t be too far behind.

For the Indiana GOP, it’s a chance to get a little respect. With a state as red as Indiana, its presence in the Republican column come November is assumed. In a typical election cycle, it’s all over but the shouting by the time our primary comes around in May; with a front-runner who’s hit the magic number, Indiana’s 57 convention delegate votes are really fairly inconsequential. In a hotly contested primary like this one, however, those same votes loom large. Face it, for a perennial wallflower, it is flattering to be wined and dined.

For our governor, it’s a chance for those one-on-one meetings with the big boys that lend him the semblance of being relevant to the process working itself out in his state. Of course, once upon a time, the governor entertained thoughts of being one of those big boys himself, so there is probably more than a little melancholia as he contemplates the self-inflicted wounds that have relegated himself to the political sidelines at the national level (and, potentially, the state level as well.)

For members of the state legislature, it’s a time to lie low and hope no one brings up some of the tone deaf measures they have enacted in the last couple of sessions to placate their far right wing base.

For the national media, it’s a chance to follow the circus from town to town and make patronizing comments about the freshly scrubbed, corn-fed residents chowing down before the cameras in some quaint small town eatery. It will be an opportunity to brush up on Hoosier Hysteria, and the state’s love affair with the Indy 500 and all things automotive. For the more industrious, it’s a chance to go find some derelict manufacturing facility and bemoan the loss of factory jobs with appropriate gravity. For the less industrious, there is always holding court at St. Elmo’s (be sure to try the shrimp cocktail with the hot sauce).

For the local media, there is the chance to rub elbows with the blessed few who have made it to the top of the profession. For a special few, there is the joy of being labeled a “local expert” and getting 10 seconds of national air time before reverting to the reality of an ordinary existence.

And what about the folks who theoretically are the reason for the circus coming to town in the first place? What’s in it for the voters?

Surprisingly little.

When the thousands of votes are counted, you would assume that the state’s delegates to the national convention would reflect the wishes of those whose candidate won the primary. So sorry. Those delegates have already been chosen, not by the voters, but by party officials in advance of the election itself. Are they bound to vote for the winner of the Indiana Republican primary?

Kind of.

On the first ballot.

After that, they can vote for whichever nominee they choose. That subsequent vote might still reflect the will of the voters, but maybe not.

The circus has a lot to do with illusion. Perhaps the saddest illusion of all is that it’s all about the voters, when it’s really all about the circus itself.

In the interest of full disclosure, I like Bernie Sanders. That doesn’t mean I can always agree with him.

In his last debate with Hillary, Bernie said that, if elected, he would ask President Obama to withdraw the name of his current nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy in order to give President-Elect Sanders the opportunity to find an alternate candidate who would commit to overturning Citizens United vs. FEC.

Don’t get me wrong. If ever there was a case in need of overturning, it is Citizens United. Endowing corporations (and unions) with the First Amendment rights of flesh and blood people stretches credulity. Sure, I can go to my piggy bank and withdraw $100 to donate to the candidate of my choice. To say it is the same thing for a corporation to go to its piggy bank and pump $100,000,000 (or in the case of the Koch brothers, $900,000,000) into the political process through anonymous contributions to Super PACs, or other legal confections intended to obscure the money trail, offends common sense.

It isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. Both parties, their candidates, and all the various “independent” entities toiling in the twilight world of campaign finance are fully capable of acquiring their share of the monetary windfall released by Citizens United. The loser is the political system itself. Government by the people runs the risk of being perceived as government by the biggest bank roll—and that isn’t a healthy perception.

But I digress.

Somewhere in this fair republic of ours, there should be a place that is insulated from the hurly-burly of the passing political passions of the day. That’s not my idea; it’s the ideal the framers of the Constitution were attempting to achieve when they created the federal judiciary.

It was a conscious decision. Judges appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the Senate. Lifetime tenure during good behavior. Salaries that could not be reduced to avoid such cuts being used as a means of political coercion or retribution. Judges were supposed to apply the law to the facts irrespective of politics.

I wasn’t born yesterday. (Nor, come to think of it, for many, many yesterdays before yesterday!) I am aware that appointments to the federal bench are not devoid of political considerations. However, those considerations should be confined to exploring general judicial tendencies and philosophy, and not to how a specific jurist would vote on a specific case. Prejudging cases is not what the framers had in mind.

Admittedly, judicial appointing is an imprecise science, and this is especially true when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Who could have predicted that Dwight Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren would usher in one of the most progressive eras in the court’s history? Who could have predicted that a court whose majority loudly embraced the concept of judicial restraint and respect for states’ rights would step in and tell the State of Florida to stop a recount of votes cast in the 2000 presidential election, thus handing the election to George Bush?

For that matter, who could have predicted that a court whose majority trumpets its respect for precedent would overturn a century of precedent in order to arrive at its decision in Citizens United?

On balance, however, we are better off with a court that more resembles Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates (you never know what you’re going to get) than one populated by jurists whose answers to litmus-test questions were well received by whoever was in the ascendency at a given time.

Litmus tests are no respecters of political ideology.

Progressives, and this includes Bernie, would howl like scalded cats if an appointment hinged on whether a candidate for the Supreme Court would publicly commit to oppose any efforts to break up the big banks on Wall Street.

As comforting as it may be to seek certainty, a little uncertainty is more what the framers had in mind.

This season of Republican discontent raises an interesting question: To whom should a political party be most responsive, its elite establishment leadership or the “rank and file” casting votes for its candidates?

          By this time, it is abundantly clear that after sitting on their collective thumbs through the first part of the nomination process, the movers and shakers within the GOP have come to the conclusion that, despite the fact he has garnered embarrassingly more votes than any other presidential hopeful, Donald Trump is unacceptable as the party’s standard-bearer.

          Having failed to successfully coalesce behind any of the 14 candidates who have bitten the dust since the nomination process began, what has come to be known as the “Stop Trump” movement is left with only two alternatives currently in the race, John Kasich or Ted Cruz.

          Governor Kasich is an interesting option. In Republican debates, he often appears to be the only adult on the stage. Well spoken, unfailingly upbeat, he is the sitting governor of a swing state that is seen as a “must win” for any candidate, irrespective of party.

          On the downside, he appears to be as popular with the party faithful as a trip to the dentist. (Not that there is anything wrong with going to the dentist, and don’t forget to floss!) He has only won a single state, his own, and has rarely been competitive elsewhere. He has fewer pledged delegates than Marco Rubio, who has been out of the race for weeks. Moreover, his shiny image is at least partially attributable to not having been perceived as a big enough player to have his narrative of events challenged. But when public safety employees in Ohio murmur about getting the short end of the stick when it comes to wages and benefits in order help shore up the state’s fiscal problems, and when city and town officials complain that millions of dollars have been diverted from their coffers for the same reason, you begin to suspect the dew might be coming off the rose. It could come off rather quickly if his record as governor were given the kind of scrutiny to which front runners are inevitably subjected.

          By default, the powers that be seem to be leaning towards Ted Cruz as the Donald Trump antidote. Which is ironic, because if The Donald is the most disliked candidate in living memory, the one coming in a close second is Ted Cruz. As the irrepressible Lindsey Graham put it back in late February: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

          Less than six weeks later, Lindsey hasn’t killed Ted, but he has endorsed him. When pressed to explain his change of heart, the best Senator Graham could come up with was that Ted Cruz was not Donald Trump.

          What gives?

          On many issues, Ted’s positions are every bit as out of the mainstream as Donald’s. The only difference (and it is a chilling difference) is that Ted really believes what he says. If the Republican brain trust’s collective wisdom if that The Donald is unelectable, what makes them think Ted is?

          Or maybe Ted’s electability has nothing to do with it.

          Ted Cruz is the only active candidate standing who can block The Donald from amassing the 1,237 delegates necessary to snare the presidential nomination on the first ballot at the Cleveland convention.

          But Ted Cruz won’t have 1,237 delegates either. You have an open convention.

          After the first ballot, all bets are off. Delegates are free to vote for anyone, and the majority of the delegates are party regulars, not candidate activists. Given the opportunity, they could defect from both The Donald and Ted.

          To John Kasich? Maybe. To someone not currently in the race?

          Hmmm.

          Watch the Convention Rules Committee.

Each convention makes up its own rules. If there is any movement toward opening up the nomination process to make it practical to entertain nominations from the floor of the convention, look for the establishment’s fingerprints.

Open things up and a Paul Ryan is possible. Heck, even a Jeb Bush might rejoin the land of the living.

Of course, there would be a price to be paid.

That price would be to tell those millions of party faithful – and crossovers and newcomers – who participated in the nomination process that their votes, their wishes, are irrelevant. When push comes to shove, the decision can be taken out of their hands by a privileged coterie of party elites.

Which brings us back to the original question. To whom should a party be most responsive? Its establishment elite, or its voters? Even if the voters’ wishes might appear to be self-destructive?

I wouldn’t presume to have the answer to that question, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out should that story line come to pass.

It would probably be a good thing to stop and take a deep breath. This election season is making us all overwrought.

There was a United States before the first 2016 presidential campaign was launched, and there will be a United States after the last 2016 yard sign is put out in the trash.

In the meantime, the slightest occurrence is magnified far beyond its actual importance, and partisan blood pressures spike from sea to shining sea.

The 24/7 news cycle has a lot to do with it, as does the Balkanization of news coverage itself.

Not so many years ago, the news came in little half-hour bites, even less counting commercials. You watched Uncle Walter on CBS, or Frank on ABC, or Chet and David on NBC. Whoever was your favorite, they came across pretty much down the middle. They were observers, rather than players, who never considered themselves to be part of the action itself.

Every little hiccup was not analyzed and masticated ad infinitum for the simple reason that there wasn’t enough time available to pontificate interminably.

Certainly this is not the case today. The beast needs to be fed, and if you don’t care for the first version of the truth you hear, feel free to change the channel for an alternate version more to your liking.

As this is written, the sky-is-falling issue of the day is the fact that Donald Trump’s campaign manager has been arrested on a CRIMINAL CHARGE of simple assault. Run for the hills!

Oh, come on. Any first-year law student can tell you that simple assault, i.e. “an unwarranted, unconsented touching of another in a rude and insolent manner,” is at the very bottom of the criminal food chain. Socially objectionable, surely. The act of a boor, most definitely. Does it rank up there with the San Bernardino shooters? I think not.

In the normal course of things, should a prosecutor decide to file charges at all, the perpetrator will probably pay some fees to go into a pretrial diversion program, keep his nose clean for a year or so, and that will be that. The charge goes away.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking a whack at the media. As President Obama noted this week, news is a business. If the current state of affairs is representative of the accepted business model, who am I to take issue?

I am more concerned about us – you and me – and how we react to all that is being thrown at us.

Just because so much in today’s political discourse is described in apocalyptic terms does not mean we have to react in an apocalyptic manner. The danger is that if we engage in knee-jerk reactions to all of the sound and fury, we become trigger-happy, ready to storm or defend the barricades, depending on the issue, at the drop of a hat.

Acting in heat is rarely the wisest course of action.

The fact some of the candidates are unable to treat each other with civility is no excuse for us not to treat each other with civility here at home.

Here’s the thing. We, the body politic, are the strength, and at the same time, the Achilles heel, of this republic. If we maintain our equilibrium, what happens between the politicians, the pundits, and the talking heads is largely irrelevant, because they need us more than we need them. For them to achieve their ends, they have to come to us. It’s called an election.

Our job is to have the presence of mind to choose between the alternatives served up for our consideration. That’s what the framers had in mind — a belief that the people, given the chance and resources, were fully capable of ruling themselves without being told what to do by a political or social elite.

On the other hand, if we lose our heads and go off halfcocked, reacting impulsively to each passing dust devil, we increase instability and enhance the chances we become nothing more sheep for the shearing.

Bottom line, for a little while, lay down the flags and the bunting. Take off the angry buttons. Remove the bumper stickers pledging allegiance to one political tribe or another.

Do you believe in this republic or not?

If you do, do you believe it so fragile that the addition of a liberal-leaning justice, the elevation of a social democrat, or even the election of a bombastic and totally unqualified New York real estate magnate to the presidency, spells its doom?

The answer, so long as we hold faith with each other, is an emphatic “no.”

If that mutual reliance is lost, and there’s reason to fear that process has already begun, there are very dark days ahead.

Perhaps the best advice is not all that complicated.

Chill out.

It was a dark and stormy night.

            I was walking in the fog down a poorly lit street, when a furtive-looking man wearing a trench coat stepped out from a side alley and blocked my path. He opened up the flap of the trench coat and I saw he had several watches pinned to the inner lining.

            “Hey, buddy,” he says, “wanna buy a watch?”

            I’m suspicious, but what the heck, my old watch was about at the end of its life cycle, and I was in the market for a new one.

            “So, tell me about the watches.”

            The guy’s eyes lit up at the prospect of a sale.

            “First of all,” says he, “look at the brand. It’s a well-known brand, and for years it was the watch of choice for many Americans. It was conservative, not flashy. It was reliable. It kept good time.”

            “Come to think of it,” says I, “I do remember the brand. But I haven’t seen it around much recently. Where’s it been?”

            “Well, that’s a sad story. Management committed a strategic blunder. They decided to concentrate on selling our watches to a small fringe of rabid watch collectors. Then they found out there weren’t enough folks in the fringe to enable us to meet our national sales goals, so now we’re trying to reintroduce our brand to the general public in the hope that the mass market will restore our brand to its former glory.”

            “Fair enough. So how do these watches differ from the ones that led your brand to disaster?”

            The guy looks up and down the street to make sure no one can overhear him.

            “I probably shouldn’t be telling you this, buddy, but they’re the same watches. The brand repackaged them, but what’s inside, what makes them tick, is exactly the same.”

            “But if you couldn’t sell enough of them before, what makes you think you can sell more of them now if they are the same watches?”

            The guy seemed offended.

            “You have to trust the brand,” he sniffed, “and hope that things turn out better this time around after they solve the production problems.”

            “What production problems?”

            He seems uneasy.

            “Well, truth be told, in order to appeal to the rabid watch collectors, the brand needed to make some quality compromises … ”

            “Such as?”

            “Okay, so they’re erratic. They can’t be relied upon. Given the opportunity, they do nothing at all, and hope you’re satisfied that they give you the correct time twice a day. Do you want to buy a watch or not?”

            “I think I’ll pass,” says I, and continued walking down the street.

            That bit of fiction aside, today’s national Republican Party is offering the American people essentially the same deal—not that it’s much of a deal.

For years, Republican candidates for Congress and the White House have catered more and more to a party “base” that, more and more, has been increasingly out of step with a majority of the American people. It’s not a case of the majority drifting left so much as the “base” stampeding even further to the right.

            Now the gap is so noticeable that there is a recognition the “base” is not a large enough voting block to win a national election.

            So, has the Republican brand improved, er, “moderated” itself in order to attract broader electoral support?

            On the contrary, it has doubled down on its right wing agenda in order to solidify its “base” while doing little, if anything, to accommodate those holding more centrist positions. Folks are asked to trust the Republican brand “as is” and hope for the best.

            After its 2012 defeat, the party conducted a post-mortem. The report that came out of that exercise made several reasonable recommendations. Anxious to avoid alienating the base, none of those recommendations were acted upon to any significant degree.

            After a train wreck of a nomination process, we are presented with two leading candidates who are proof positive that it is not always the cream that rises to the top.  We are asked to support one or the other of them for no other good reason than that they are Republican, and they are conservative—or in the case of one, maybe or maybe not.

            It isn’t good enough. To enable the party to limp through this election only allows it to continue its self-destructive trajectory. As is often the case with an addict, the party is unlikely to change course until it hits rock bottom—and that means losing the national election this fall.

            By this time, my political preferences are fairly well known, but at the most basic level I know America needs two viable political parties that offer options that can be pursued without first taking leave of reality. The Republican Party needs to reboot. If it is unable to do so voluntarily, perhaps it will out of necessity.

            Or resign itself to having fewer and fewer folks buying its watches.

A few days ago, I went to the Howard County Bar Association’s memorial service for my friend Randy Hainlen. As is usually the case at these events, there were several memorial resolutions read into the court record. As is also typical, since lawyers are often politically active, there were multiple references to Randy’s affiliation with the Democrat party. The references were light-hearted, and caused more than a few titters and chuckles – which helped everyone get through an otherwise somber event.

It got me to thinking of some of the other courthouse characters no longer with us.

First, there was Dick Ellis. Dick was charged by the Indiana Supreme Court with interviewing this recent law school grad to ascertain whether or not I was of sufficient moral character to be admitted to the state bar. Boy, did he blow that one! The “interview” consisted primarily of Dick regaling me about the time, many years before, he “almost” was nominated to run for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket.

There was Bob Whitehead, Democrat, first judge of the Howard County Court, just a self-described “poor country lawyer”—who could charm the false teeth out of your mouth before you even knew they were slipping.

Ralph Helms, county Republican Party chairman, political operative without equal. More than a few of us cut our political teeth trying to beat Ralph, but we rarely, if ever, succeeded. Even as he was cutting your throat, politically speaking, Ralph was a gentleman about it.

With old-school guys like these, and hopefully it is still the case with the current crop of practicing attorneys, there was respect and the political games pretty much stopped at the courthouse door.

Which is as it should be. Politics has no place in the administration of justice. The lady in the statue is blindfolded for a reason.

If this is as it should be in a county seat courthouse in the middle of the Indiana cornfields, should it not be even more the case when talking about the Supreme Court sitting in our nation’s capital?

The president of the United States, who holds office until Jan. 20, 2017, has done his constitutional duty and nominated a successor to the late Antonin Scalia. Under our Constitution, the responsibility passes to the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the nomination. Or to give its advice and withhold the consent. But to do something.

Instead, the Senate majority leader has taken the position that the Senate majority will do nothing. No meetings. No hearings. No votes. No nothing.

I can think of plausible reasons to explain this obstructionist position.

It could simply be a matter of personal dislike. After the president’s first election victory, the same majority leader said his first priority was to make sure the president had only one term. The president was re-elected with a five-million vote cushion. To deny the president’s nominee a hearing and vote just to spite the president seems rather petty.

Or maybe it’s the reason most commonly cited—to give the American people a voice in the selection. The problem is that the American people had a voice in the selection back in 2012, when they confirmed this president’s mandate to be president—and exercise the full powers of that office for a full four-year term—with that same five-million vote cushion.

Perhaps it is as suggested by a letter written to the Tribune: “We the people put in place this Senate in 2014, two years after the president was re-elected. One of the reasons voters put this Senate majority in place was to stop or turn back what a clear majority saw as overreaches of power by the president and his pursuit of a far-left agenda the nation is not comfortable with.”

There are a couple of problems. First of all, the premise is factually incorrect. This Senate was not put in place in 2014. One third of the current membership was elected in that year. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the 2014 class priority over the Senate classes elected in 2012, or even 2010. As to the president’s agenda, that was pretty clear by 2012—and there remains that pesky five-million vote edge. Why not just suck it up, admit you lost in 2012, and go on to 2016?

Which brings us to perhaps the most cogent theory explaining the majority leader’s intransigence.

Voters in Republican primaries and caucuses seem intent on making Donald Trump the party’s nominee, despite the fact that he has a 60 percent disapproval rating, and, according to at least one poll, 27 percent of registered Republicans saying they could not vote for him under any circumstance.

Those numbers spell trouble for the Grand Old Party—and not only in the presidential race. Disillusionment over the top of the ticket could bleed over into races further down the ticket—such as Senate and House. In addition to Republicans voting Democrat, you have the even more likely possibility of Republicans being so disgusted with the Trump nomination that they simply stay home and don’t vote at all.

If the court nomination can be kept on the front burner as an issue through November, it might serve to keep those unhappy Republican faithful engaged in the election and willing to cast their votes. Whatever they do on Trump, they could be relied upon to vote for Republicans down the ticket.

The problem with all these scenarios is that they are political in nature. They are examples of the “inside the beltway” establishment manipulation this spring’s voters are rejecting—with good reason.

Keep it simple. Do your job. Have the hearing. Take the vote.

If you think the nominee is not acceptable, or if you think you might get a better deal from the next president, then vote the nominee down.

But for Pete’s sake, do something.

Word from the hospital is that House Speaker Paul Ryan is recovering nicely from the self-inflicted shoulder separation caused by patting himself on the back about the GOP’s freedom from any form of racial bias.

            In a swipe at Donald Trump’s alleged failure to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, Speaker Ryan is reported as saying: “If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games—they must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals.”

            This is sensitive stuff. I have (or at least I had, before I began writing these columns) many Republican friends and acquaintances. There is not a one of them to whom I would apply the ugly label of bigot, or racist.

            On the other hand, none of my friends or acquaintances have had a role in formulating the grand strategies of their party.

            When you look at some of those strategies, there are some inconvenient facts that are hard to square with Speaker Ryan’s self-congratulatory comments.

            Exhibit 1 is the so-called “Southern Strategy.”

            Once upon a time, the states of the former Confederacy were reliably Democrat. Then, in the mid-1960s, President Johnson signed off on legislation intended to protect the civil rights of American minorities. This legislation did not go over well below the Mason-Dixon Line, where it was seen as an illegitimate federal attempt to regulate matters that had previously been the exclusive province of the individual states. This was code for a continuation of Jim Crow.

            Republican strategists saw an opportunity. Republican candidates began to talk more about “states’ rights,” “federal overreach,” and the virtues of local control. This created political cover for keeping the status quo, those busybodies in Washington be damned.

            The strategy worked. Within a few years, what had been a Democrat stronghold became the Republican stronghold it is today.

            There was a price to pay. African-American voters who previously could be counted on to vote for the Party of Lincoln defected to the Democrats. The increase in the Hispanic vote did not bode well either for the Grand Old Party. The need to minimize the damage caused by these shifts in the body politic led to another self-serving strategy–voter ID laws.

            It is hard to argue against maintaining the sanctity of the ballot box. However, when you investigate the frequency of the voter fraud these laws are supposed to prevent, it becomes apparent the measures coming out of Republican-dominated state legislatures across the country are pretty much a solution in search of a problem. By most accounts, proven cases of voter fraud are few and far between.

            Be that as it may, goes the counter argument, it is not a great burden for a voter to procure some form of identification, typically a picture ID. Courts have agreed with this. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the ID laws have had the effect of lowering voter turnout—and that the lower turnout is most notable within specific subsets of voters, most of whom vote Democrat. It is hard to escape the conclusion the voter ID laws benefit Republican candidates, and act to the detriment of Democrat candidates. Then-Pennsylvania House Majority leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, let that particular cat out of the bag in 2012. While touting Republican legislative accomplishments, he famously (or infamously) said proudly, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania—Done.” In other words, the primary motivation for the law was political.

            What a convenient side benefit to protecting the ballot box against a non-problem.

            Finally, you have the history of the GOP’s relationship with this particular president.

            It is acceptable to disagree politically, even vehemently disagree, with each and every policy advanced by the man. But is it acceptable to challenge the very legitimacy of the man to hold the office – the man not once but twice elected by a majority of our fellow citizens?

What is the difference between a president being born of an American mother wherever (although in this case it was Hawaii) and a Ted Cruz being born of an American mother in Canada? Why is it that with the exception of Donald Trump, Cruz’s status has been a non-issue, while with the sitting president, it was of earth-shattering importance for years?

Does a political party have an obligation, in order to safeguard public faith in the legitimacy of our political institutions, to challenge erroneous beliefs held by its own faithful? Or is it permissible to sit by and do nothing to set the record straight if there is a political advantage to be gained?

Is it appealing to the “highest ideals” of the party faithful to fail to take an official position against the notion Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and thus, is not qualified to serve as president, if there is proof otherwise? Even today, large percentages of Republican voters believe, contrary to the evidence, that the president (a) was not born in America, and (b) is a Muslim.           

            In its treatment of this president, the GOP leadership has not appealed to the “highest ideals” of the party faithful, but rather has prostituted itself to the baser instincts of a minority within the party—and all for political gain.

            Protestations of political purity and idealism wear thin in the face of such examples of political chicanery and manipulation.

The missus and I were tooling down the interstate headed towards a family visit in Clemson, South Carolina, recently when the voice on the radio announced that Donald Trump would be holding a rally in—guess where—Clemson, South Carolina! Instructions were given on how to get tickets to the event.

            Folks who know me are aware that The Donald is not my cup of tea, but what the heck, he is this election season’s phenomenon, and I do teach government, so—strictly as an intellectual exercise, of course—it was too good an opportunity to pass up.

            The missus is as close as we get to a technology geek, and she soon had us hooked up via iPhone to the ticketing site. Just as soon as they got our names, addresses, telephone numbers, and shoe sizes (just kidding on the last one), we received the emailed link to our tickets. For the record, no one will ever ask to see any tickets all night. In my time I have been on some strange mailing lists given my political preferences (Republican National Committee, National Rifle Association, Murdock for Senator, just to name a few). If the GOP circus is still in progress when the Indiana primary rolls around, I suspect The Donald’s campaign organization will be added to the list.

            Anyway, with time to spare, we headed out for the rally. One mile from the rally venue we hit the bumper-to-bumper. It will take a solid hour to traverse that last single mile.

            There are cars from all over, but my attention was drawn to a foreign-built SUV in the next lane. The rear window is festooned with a couple of “Don’t Tread on Me” stickers, an American flag decal, an “I (heart) my Boxer” sticker, a United States Marine sticker, and a sticker featuring the silhouette of an assault rifle. I couldn’t read the sentiment on the last one, but I doubt that it had anything to do with banning such weapons. Why is it that some of these uber-patriots who profess a willingness to bleed and die for America, display an unwillingness to own a vehicle built by their fellow Americans? Just saying.

            Eventually, we get to create a parking space in a grassy field and strike out a couple of blocks overland, and in the dark, to the T. Ed Garrison Livestock Arena (recognized as “one of the premier multi-purpose livestock facilities in the Southeast,” according to its website).

            The main entrance is blocked by multiple airport-style metal detectors manned by local law enforcement, TSA security, and the Secret Service (Uniform Division). These folks weren’t messing around. The missus sees a guy turned away because he had a penknife with a two-inch blade.  As for herself, she carries a purse with enough hidey holes to guarantee she can’t find what she wants when she wants it. They went through that purse hidey hole by hidey hole.

            Clearing security, we entered the arena. The sound system is working overtime. Given the occasion, you would think it would be blaring out Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” or Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA,” even if the lyrics to the latter are more than a little subversive. But no. Rather, we are serenaded by Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer.” Tiny Dancer?  Really??

            The seats on the arena floor fill up. The venue claims a capacity of three thousand seats, plus temporary seating on the arena floor, so we – and the local media – guestimate four or five thousand attendees. The Donald claims ten thousand.

            The crowd is almost exclusively white. There were more minorities outside hawking T-shirts and buttons than there were inside the hall. There were a lot of young people, which surprised me. I thought they all had the “Bern.” There was much camo clothing and many baseball caps. The only suits appeared to be on people associated with the campaign.

            Eventually, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina comes out to the podium. “These are dangerous times,” he intones. “We need a leader with true vision. Who is that man?” (The crowd starts chanting “Trump! Trump! Trump!”) “Everybody who believes in the American Dream, here’s your next president …”

            And The Donald strides on to the stage to the strains of the Beatles’ “Revolution.” The rumbling we heard was probably John Lennon turning over in his grave.

            Admittedly, so far I have written with more than a little tongue in cheek. Let me be deadly serious.

            This guy is good on the stump. Very good.

            There was nothing new in what the crowd heard. There were the familiar well-received applause lines, but it wasn’t so much what he said as how he said it. He didn’t talk to the crowd, he wooed it. “This crowd is amazing.” …  “The people of America are so smart. (When I’m in office), you will be so proud of your country, so proud of your president.” … “I’m greedy. I want to be greedy for America.” … “If we win here, we’re going to run the table and make America great again.” … “Get out and vote. I love you. I love you.”

            For 50 minutes, he held that crowd in the palm of his hand.

            Then he came down off the stage to sign autographs to a reprise of “Revolution” and, in what I thought an interesting choice, the Rolling Stones rendition of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” … but sometimes you get what you need.

            All in all, an interesting evening with a man whose draw with the Republican faithful—and even further afield—should not be underestimated.

            But “Tiny Dancer”?  Really??

In a most unseemly and disrespectful move, almost before the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s body was cold, we had the spectacle of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, stating flatly that he will block any Supreme Court nominee submitted by this president —irrespective of who that nominee might be.

Shortly thereafter, his fellow senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio attempted to put some lipstick on the pig by citing an “informal” Senate rule that would prevent appointment and confirmation of a lifetime judicial appointment in a presidential year—the so-called “Thurmond Rule.”

Bull hockey on both counts.

In defending his past employer, a former McConnell chief of staff is quoted in the New York Times: “It was necessary. The suggestion that the American people should have a say here isn’t exactly risky ground to be on. … As for politics, if anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts. The liberal left will be as loud as they have ever been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left.”

I agree that the American people should have a say in this appointment; in fact, they already did. It is called a presidential election, and in the one that matters, this president won by a margin of five million votes. In percentage terms, that is 51.1 percent to Mitt Romney’s 47.2 percent. That’s a larger margin than George W. Bush in 2004 (51 percent to 48 percent)—never mind his Presidency-by-Supreme Court-intervention in 2000. It is even greater than what the sanctified Ronald Reagan achieved in 1980 (50.75 percent).

In fact, the sitting president is the first to win election twice by more than 50 percent since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.

The problem is, of course, that certain political figures, Mitch McConnell chief amongst them, have steadfastly refused to accept the decision of the American people for the past seven years. He should be among the last to talk about the American people “having a say,” having ignored what they had to say twice with unmistakable clarity.

It is true this president’s term has a little under a year to go. However, he was not elected to a partial term. Until Jan. 20, 2017, the president retains all of the power, and bears the burden of all the duties, specified in the Constitution. This includes Article II Section 2: “He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.”

This provision also infers a duty on the part of the Senate to take action to perform its constitutional duty to provide, or withhold its consent—not simply refuse to do anything.

On to the former staffer’s second supposition, that “the only consternation will be confined to the activist left.” This says the “great middle” of the American people don’t give a darn about this over-arching issue one way or the other – and won’t give a darn all the way to Election Day. Any politician who dismisses as irrelevant the “center of the electorate” that lies between the “radical right” and the “activist left” does so at their peril.

As to the “Thurmond Rule,” while Justice Scalia was not above contradicting himself ideologically when it suited his purposes, he took pride in being an “originalist.” This means adhering to the absolute letter of the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. I suspect he would not take kindly to a position supporting abrogation of the clear language of the Constitution in favor of an ”informal rule” that hasn’t been consistently followed since ole Strom gave up the ghost.

Before and after the “Thurmond Rule” was voiced in 1968, appointments and confirmations have gone on. Some examples: In 1932, Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Despite Hoover’s defeat by Franklin Roosevelt, Cardozo was confirmed. In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, meaning Brennan went on the court without a confirmation hearing; the confirmation occurred later in Eisenhower’s second term. Current Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by Jimmy Carter to the appellate bench in 1980, after Ronald Reagan won the White House. In 1988, a Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy in an election year.

Speaking of the lower federal courts, from 1947 to 2014, according to the New York Times, there have been 79 appellate court nominations and 416 District Court nominations made in presidential election years. They may not have all been confirmed, but there were nominations made by the president and considered by the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.

Finally, it does not help Sen. McConnell’s case when he is on record—and on tape—in the well of the Senate arguing against application of the “Thurmond Rule” when it was Republican nominees he was attempting to shepherd through the confirmation process in 2008. When will these folks figure out cameras have long memories?

I believe the lipstick is sufficiently smeared.

So what then is this all about?  It’s about politics. Do the math.

The Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats this November, the Democrats only 10. Many observers predict that 10 of the GOP seats are “in play.” Democrats need to win just five of those races to regain control of the Senate, assuming they hold on to the seats they already have. Those 10 threatened GOP senators don’t want to have to take positions that might offend the hardcore Republican base and/or antagonize more moderate voters. McConnell’s current obstructionism saves them from decisions on at least one major issue. And McConnell can take the heat; he isn’t up for reelection!

This is high risk/high reward politics—but pure politics nevertheless. The gamble is that if the GOP retains the Senate, the current president is denied a political victory—which has pretty much been the common thread running through Republican strategy since 2008. Should the GOP pick up the White House, they could nominate and confirm someone who would preserve the current 5-4 conservative split that has been in place since the 1970s. Moreover, given the age of several of the remaining justices, odds are there will be multiple openings over the next four to eight years.

Of course, there is a downside that, given the shambles that is the Republican nomination process, Sen. McConnell and his fellow travelers might want to consider.

The GOP could lose the White House and/or lose control of the Senate.

Perhaps there is something to be said for pursuing a compromise nominee while there is leverage to do so.

The current president may be many things, but stupid he is not. While he might choose to be blatantly political and nominate one of those “left wing jurists” just to goad Sen. McConnell into apoplexy, it is more likely he would prefer to see a more moderate middle-of-the-road nominee actually confirmed. There is room to negotiate who that might be.

If the Republican candidate wins the White House, there will likely be ample opportunity to regain the hallowed conservative edge. If the candidate loses, the party is up the creek anyway.

There is another scenario.

The position remains unfilled. The Democrats regain control of the Senate and retain control of the White House. So now they are in a position to confirm the president’s nominee.

There will be available a newly unemployed former constitutional law professor and Nobel Laureate, of an appropriate age, with extensive experience in government at the national level.

Mr. Justice Barack Obama.  Has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?

Sleep well, Mitch.