There are a couple of unrelated odds and ends that have recently caught my attention.

First of all, there has been much discussion in the media about the June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and some number of Russian nationals (the precise number seems to go up and down on a weekly basis).

We are told that Donald Jr. was disappointed because the Russian attorney who asked for the meeting didn’t really have some good dirt on Hillary Clinton, as advertised, but only seemed interested in talking about resuming the adoption of Russian children by American citizens.

While adoption seemed, on its face, to be an innocuous enough subject, the thing that kept gnawing at me was that while there was a ban on the adoption of Russian children by would-be American adoptive parents, that ban had been imposed by Vladimir Putin, and not by the American government.

If they wanted adoptions to resume, why would a Russian delegation be talking about a ban on Russian adoptions with Americans? Wouldn’t their time be better spent lobbying the Russian Government that imposed the ban in the first place?

Turns out the ban was imposed in retaliation for the passage by the U.S. Congress of something called the Magnitsky Act.

The Magnitsky Act involved denying specific Russian nationals allegedly connected with the death of a Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, entrance into the United States, and use of the United State banking system (and their banking accounts). Magnitsky had been investigating massive corruption allegedly involving top members of the Russian ruling cabal connected to Vladimir Putin. Lengthy investigations since have alleged that Magnitsky was tortured prior to his death.

I have tried, I really have, to avoid speculation in these columns. In this case, the dots beg to be connected.

Contrary to a narrative about the plight of unadoptable Russian children, does it make more sense to surmise that what was actually on the table was the possibility of lifting the ban on Russian adoptions in return for lifting the sanctions in the Magnitsky Act? In effect, giving specific individuals allegedly involved in the torture death of Sergei Magnitsky renewed access to the United States – and their money?

If such a quid pro quo was discussed with the Russians, in the face of an act of the United States Congress, it puts the discussions in an entirely different – and much less innocent – light.

Again, mere speculation, but it sure makes sense to me.

Then, a few days ago, a proposal was floated to reduce legal immigration to the United States by an estimated 50 percent over the next 10 years.

The plan includes a “points” system. English-speaking applicants with advanced skills would be given priority, and everybody else could wander off to the back of a bus whose capacity had been cut by 50 percent.

As I have mentioned before, I am, myself, an immigrant.

When my mom and dad applied for admission, my mother, who never attended university, had been a secretary with the British occupation forces in post-war Germany. She would, however, graduate, with high honors, from Indiana University Kokomo, when she was 72 years old.

My dad, born in 1912, never made it past primary school – he was too busy bringing in money to his widowed mother and siblings during the Great Depression.

At the time of his application for entry into the United States, he had going for him the fact that he was Northern European and, technically, spoke English. In reality, until the day he died, few people in Kokomo could figure out, through his thick Scottish brogue, what the heck he was talking about.

Beyond that, his skills consisted of driving a double-decker bus, knowing from his time on World War II troopships to put lots of ice in the drinks of American officers, and how to maintain a Bofors anti-aircraft gun.

None of these skills were in great demand in post-war America.

Nevertheless, they got in. They worked hard. They saved what they could. They paid their taxes.

They were able to send the second generation (me) through Indiana University – undergrad and law school.

In turn, I had the privilege of serving my hometown as city attorney for 25 years and four different mayors. Thereafter, their boy served for almost 10 years as an assistant, and then associate, professor at the local community college lecturing on American government and politics.

The third generation, between the missus and I, produced three children.

One is an ob/gyn serving an underserved population at Eskenazi Hospital in Indianapolis. Another is a surgeon just beginning a fellowship in critical care and trauma surgery at the University of Cincinnati. He too feels drawn to serving that same underserved population at Eskenazi, or some other Level One trauma center.

The third sibling, with a couple of master’s degrees under her belt, is a museum educator at The Children’s Museum in Indianapolis, with the fancy title of “Archeologist in Residence.”

I don’t want to sound as if I am in danger of dislocating my shoulder patting myself on the back, but I am proud of my family and the point is, some nameless immigration official 66 years or so ago made a bet. I think the return on that bet has been pretty good.

I don’t know that all of this would have been possible under the new proposed “points” guidelines.

While this is my family story, it is also the story of all of us who trace their ancestry back to someone knocking on the door asking to be let in to this country of ours.

To reduce the decision of who shall be allowed admission to a sterile exercise of toting up points is a betrayal of everything this country has come to represent.

It is a vision of America that is the product of small minds, a vision that makes each of us smaller as well.

Enough already.

You would think that Senate Republicans would catch on to the fact that the Repeal and Replace dog just won’t hunt because, in a closely divided chamber, any significant change to national health care will require some level of Democrat support.

You do not get Democrat support by stuffing a political defeat down their throats, which is precisely what Mitch McConnell tried to do – and failed.

Democrats see passage of the Affordable Care Act to be a major achievement of the Obama era. Others may disagree with this assessment, but nevertheless, Democrats are emotionally and politically invested in this legislation. To require, as a precondition to any further health care discussion, that the Affordable Care Act be repealed is a non-starter.

McConnell chose to ignore this reality. Just as he did in successfully blocking President Obama’s nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court, the snapping turtle from Kentucky elected to ignore custom and comity in order to ram through a political victory that would legitimize seven years of Republican damnation of Obamacare and promises of a better Republican alternative to replace it, promises that proved to be empty.

In the end, the best McConnell could do was force a vote on a so-called “skinny repeal” bill that many in his own party labelled a fraud, for which they would vote only if they were guaranteed the bill would never become law.

“No” votes cast by two persisting women and a maverick senator from Arizona denied McConnell – not to mention the current tenant in the White House – even this phony victory.

All of which brings us to today, where a president charged with seeing that the laws of the land are faithfully executed is threatening to ignore portions of the law in order to kill off the Affordable Care Act despite the fact it would mean millions of Americans, many of whom voted for him, would lose insurance coverage. In the Senate, there is even talk of attempting to resuscitate the rotting corpse of Repeal and Replace.

Rather than going down either of these paths, neither of which looks very promising, why not try another way?

Let’s call it “Repair and Reset.”

There is consensus among Democrats that the Affordable Care Act needs work. Seven years on, the flaws and unintended consequences of any piece of legislation are going to be exposed. On the other hand, millions more Americans have health care than was formerly the case.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

Why not “let’s talk?” There are ideas out there coming from both sides of the aisle, and from both chambers.

Who knows what issues and proposals would come up in a freewheeling debate, but let’s have the debate, rather than circumventing it in favor of achieving some partisan political coup.

On some issues our representatives may agree to disagree. On others, they may find ways to muzzle the tired and outdated campaign rhetoric that has poisoned the issue and actually move forward for the benefit of the American public rather than toting up an inside-the-beltway political score.

Democrats will oppose “repeal,” but they could live with “repair” because they know repair is needed. If some of those repair measures come from Republican proposals, so be it. Having some skin in the game is better than trying to explain to their constituents why, after seven years of promises, nothing got done on their watch.

And then there’s the “reset.” Let’s do it the old-fashioned way. Rather than McConnell’s cynical legerdemain, or the president’s authoritarian fulminations, let’s use regular order – draft bills with known content, with committee review, floor debate, conference committees, and the fierce negotiations that often send the negotiators up a tree, but that usually produce a better final product.

Perhaps I am naïve, but with one-sixth of the national economy at stake, I think a robust debate is what the framers of the Constitution would expect of Congress.

It’s what we should expect of Congress as well.

Repair and Reset.

Update on this column (July 31, 2017): Anthony Scaramucci was removed as communications chief today, 10 days after his appointment was announced, but before his official duties were scheduled to commence in mid-August. Thus, Mr. Scaramucci holds the notable distinction of having been fired before he was officially hired. As to the foregoing column, as Gilda Radner’s character, Rosanne Rosannadanna, would say on Saturday Night Live: “Never mind.”

In the beginning, there was Scaramouche, a stock clown character in Italian theater dating back to at least the early 17^th century. Described as “sly, adroit, supple, and conceited,” Scaramouche was often hoisted on his own petard by another stock character, Harlequin, as a consequence of his own boasting and cowardice. (Sorry, Batman fans, there is little totally new under the sun.)

Then there was “Father” Vito Sarducci, a fictional chain-smoking priest who dates back to the classic era of Saturday Night Live. Played exclusively for laughs, the Father Sarducci character was a somewhat disreputable cleric who, at one time, claimed to be the gossip columnist for L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican City State. Something of a snake oil salesman and huckster, in another sketch, Father Sarducci founded his own “people’s church” where for a mere $250 you could receive a complete papal outfit, including the fancy hat, and an official document signed by Father Sarducci naming the recipient “pope.”

Now we have been introduced to Anthony Scaramucci, newly appointed by the current tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as White House communications chief.

Today, when you put “White House” and “communications” together, some might say you must also consider the classic question perhaps best posed by the late Freddie Mercury and Queen: “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality …”

Well, prominent New York financier Tony Scaramucci, known affectionately on Wall Street as “The Mooch,” has voluntarily inserted himself into that maelstrom. He will have to please a mercurial boss who is establishing a reputation for discarding former supporters, allies, and appointees as quickly as he changes his positions on (fill in the blank.)

The key to The Mooch’s survival may well lie in the answer to this question, again with apologies to Freddie Mercury and Queen: Scaramucci, Scaramucci, can you do the fandango?

For today’s cultural lesson, “fandango” is defined in Collins English Dictionary as “an old Spanish courtship dance in triple time between a couple who dance closely and provocatively.” Guitars and castanets are usually involved. A rose held in the teeth is optional.

However, it is the secondary meaning that may be more germane: “a foolish or useless act or thing.”

Admittedly, the image of The Mooch and He Who Cannot Be Named dancing provocatively is more than a little disturbing, but the point is, Tony had best be prepared to do his best Ginger Rodgers imitation, because any variance from the Twitter of the day could prove to be terminal. (Historical Note: Ginger Rodgers was a dance partner of Fred Astaire in the 1930s. Of her dancing, it was said, “She did everything Astaire did, only she did it backwards and in high heels.”)

The secondary meaning of “fandango” comes into play because no matter how closely Scaramucci cleaves to you-know-who’s lead, the likelihood is that any attempt to create a coherent message from the increasingly incoherent ramblings emanating from the Oval Office is, as the definition describes, “a foolish or useless act.”

So, based on first impressions, which, I admit, can later prove to be in error, what similarities link these apparently dissimilar characters?

Like Scaramouche, the new communications chief appears to be smooth and adroit and seems to have a high opinion of himself. Whether the close friendship with the president, of which he boasts, will insulate him from the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” which bedeviled Hamlet, not to mention Jeff Sessions, remains to be seen.

Like Father Sarducci, he comes across as perhaps a little too glib, too polished. Would you, or should you, buy a used car, or snake oil, from this man?

Of course, the biggest question is how this quintessentially photogenic multi-millionaire city slicker from New York will go down with a faithful who view plutocrats from anywhere – but in particular, those from the Big Apple and Wall Street – with suspicion,.

As his new boss said recently with reference to another individual who thought he and the president were BFF, “Time will tell, time will tell.”

Once upon a time, so the legend goes, if the king of Siam (modern day Thailand) had a courtier, or subordinate, with whom he was well and truly displeased, he would bestow upon that person a very special gift.

That gift was a white elephant.

The albino elephant was sacred. Because it was sacred, it could not be put to any gainful employment.

Because the elephant was a gift from the king, the “much-favored” new owner couldn’t give away the elephant because this would be an unforgivable affront to the king. Since it was sacred, it couldn’t very well be sent where all good elephants go eventually – but maybe sooner rather than later.

The object of the king’s largess would be stuck with a very large and very sacred animal, with no useful purpose, the upkeep of which would eventually drive the recipient into abject poverty.

Which brings us to a little discussed aspect of the Republican health care proposals.

Proponents of the current House and Senate versions suggest that under their plans, responsibility for some aspects of health care would devolve back to the individual states. This, we are told would allow states to tailor health coverage to meet each state’s unique needs rather than a national one-size-fits-all approach.

Federal funds would be made available to help ease the transition from national to state responsibility.

On the face of it, such a move would seem consistent with the GOP’s fascination with downsizing the federal government by sending some of its functions back to the states. If you dig a bit deeper, however, you begin to uncover some, shall we say, “white elephant” issues.

First of all, there is the issue of funding the expanded state role in health care.

Even if there initially are federal dollars to ease in a transition from national to state responsibility, is there really anyone out there who dismisses the possibility (or likelihood) that such funding could be cut, or capped, or eliminated, at some time in the future in the name of fiscal responsibility?

If, and when, that happens, states will be faced with a tough choice. Do they pony up more state money for health care … or do they reduce health care benefits?

Another consideration: States do not have equal resources. What may be affordable in California may not be affordable in North Dakota … or Indiana. Should the level of health care depend upon the state in which someone gets sick or injured?

Do I migrate to a state with more generous benefits? Will that state accept me, or attempt to deny coverage?

Finally, what mischief is likely to take place as state legislatures “tailor” their coverage?

Does it sound out of bounds to deny coverage to undocumented individuals?

How about access to birth control products?

Do we resist tinkering with prohibitions on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or do we make the cost of coverage cost prohibitive for someone with a pre-existing condition?

Do we reinstate lifetime caps on coverage?

What about self-induced medical emergencies? There is already a city councilman in Ohio advocating that if you have overdosed twice, on the third strike, the ambulance will not come to save you. (If you find yourself agreeing with this approach, you might want to refer to Matthew 18:21-22 KJV for guidance on how often forgiveness should be extended.)

What about coverage for medical issues unique to specific groups within the general population – such as sickle cell anemia, found primarily in the African-American population, or issues more common in the LGBT community?

Do we really want to fund another generation of lawyers to fight yet another round of the social wars, because in your heart you know that a multiplicity of plans will lead to a multiplicity of lawsuits which will only serve to further divide the body politic?

Do we really want a crazy quilt of 50 different health care plans?

National health care requires a national health care plan that is uniform across the board, albeit with provision in the enabling legislation made for reasonable flexibility.

Let me suggest that if you prefer a state-by-state solution, you must also be ready to take responsibility for the care of the white elephant that comes with it.

What does Sheldon Adelson have to do with a disabled coal miner receiving Medicaid benefits? Let’s consider that question.

Mr. Adelson is an extremely successful businessman.

His contribution to the betterment of mankind is derived from ownership of a reported 392,735,403 shares in his casino company, Las Vegas Sands. He is believed to have a total personal wealth of $36 billion dollars.

Assuming Las Vegas Sands pays an annualized dividends of $2.92 per share, as has been reported elsewhere, Mr. Adelson would receive $1.14 billion in income from dividends in 2017.

In the Affordable Care Act, there is currently a 3.8 percent tax on investment income – dividends and capital gains – for individuals with more than $200,000 in annual earnings, or $250,000 for a couple.

Note, this tax is on investment income only. Other sources of income are not involved.

Under the ACA, money from this tax goes to fund expenditures for expansion of Medicaid and tax credits that offset the cost for folks to get insurance from individual health insurance exchanges.

Among the other modest proposals in the Trumpcare plan is deleting this tax and other taxes included in the ACA.

If you do the math, 3.8 percent on investment income of $1.4 billion dollars comes out to roughly $44 million dollars.

So, with this tax deleted, Mr. Adelson stands to save $44 million.

And what does that have to do with a disabled coal miner living on Medicaid benefits?

That $44 million is equivalent to the government’s Medicaid bill to cover about 7,670 Americans, including that disabled miner. (Numbers from Business Insider, June 22, 2017)

I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Adelson. Nor do I begrudge him his wealth (although if he can’t subsist on $ 1,356,000,000, not counting additional income or other taxes this year, he needs to talk to his accountant.)

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that proposed tax cuts under the House version of “Repeal and Replace” will reduce tax revenues to the national treasury by $1 trillion over 10 years. The revenue shortfall under the Senate version is estimated to be roughly similar.

So who must shoulder the burden of revenues lost to make possible Mr. Adelson’s windfall – and the windfall of all others currently subject to the tax?

Well, that would be the disabled coal miner. He, and all others receiving Medicaid coverage, will pay for Mr. Adelson’s windfall in the form of reduced benefits from a gutted Medicaid program.

Bottom line? All this hoopla in Washington is not about health care at all. It’s about finding monies to pay for a tax break for the very wealthy. And it’s aimed at the folks least able to pay it, and equally, least able politically to oppose it.

And it’s not just ordinary folks who are about to get hammered.

Rural hospitals depend on Medicaid reimbursements to keep their doors open.

According to the North Carolina Rural Research Program, about 80 rural hospitals have already gone belly up since 2010. According to a study by Chartis Center for Rural Health, 673 additional rural hospitals are teetering on the edge of insolvency if their income from Medicaid reimbursement is cut.

When those hospitals treat a non-insured patient (since, as the GOP leadership readily points out, there is always “access” to health care), those costs are passed along to the rest of us. Nothing costs nothing.

By definition, you find rural hospitals in rural areas. You find them in those rural counties that reliably turn bright red every election.

When folks in those counties are driving a few counties over for whatever treatment they need, emergency or otherwise, they have their very own Republican congressional delegation to thank.

As I’m sure Mr. Adelson, and others similarly situated, thank them as well.

Would it come as a surprise to learn that the basic structure of the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare, is based on a Republican plan that was first floated back in 1993-1994 as an alternative to health care proposals coming out of the Clinton Administration?

That Republican plan was built around an individual mandate and private insurance exchanges, both of which ended up as basic features of the ACA, and both of which are being lambasted today by Republican members of Congress in their effort to drive the final nails into that legislation’s coffin.

What is largely forgotten is the fact that the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate at the time were not enthused about either feature. Many would have preferred a single payer system, or at least a public insurance option that would operate outside of the private exchanges.

There was actually an informal bipartisan “Gang of Six” who worked through the summer of 2009 to flesh out a plan based on the earlier Republican-based proposal.

At the time, President Obama wanted to find common ground with Republicans, and thought that it was more likely to gain some measure of Republican support using a model they had originally supported rather than presenting something entirely new.

The bipartisan approach began to sour as fall approached. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell warned Republican senators on the Gang of Six that their political futures would be in jeopardy if they worked towards legislation that would give the new president a “win.”

This warning was consistent with McConnell’s publicly stated goal to deny Obama any political victories in order to assure that he would not win re-election.

Despite growing partisan opposition, led by McConnell in the Senate, and then Congressman Eric Cantor in the House, debate on the bill proceeded.

In June and July of 2009, the Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee heard 60 hours of testimony over 13 days as it marked up the ACA legislation.

In September and October, the Senate Finance Committee spent eight days marking up the bill. By the end, 130 amendments, submitted by both Democrats and Republicans, were entertained, and more than 79 roll call votes taken.

Finally, there was Senate debate on the bill for 25 straight days before the bill was finally passed on Dec. 24, 2009.

In the end, every single Republican in the Senate voted against the bill, not necessarily on its merits, but for political reasons. McConnell was reported as saying, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bi-partisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”

The Republican caucus fell into lock step behind their leadership – and remains there today.

Memories are short, and political memories are the shortest of all. For that reason, a walk down memory lane is not out of order.

As Republican leadership lacerates the ACA, folks might want to remember its basic features – the individual mandate and private insurance exchanges – were Republican ideas in the first place.

As a political weapon, McConnell’s obstructionism was a master stroke. “Repeal Obamacare” became a battle cry that served the GOP well in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. For the Republican caucus, the problem is that after beating that particular horse for seven years, it is painfully obvious they have nothing better to offer – even when McConnell is able to craft a so-called “repeal and replace” almost totally in secret.

That is, unless you consider 22 million American losing health insurance, draconian cuts in Medicaid, higher premiums, and lesser coverage, to be progress.

As to the House version, even President Trump labeled it as “mean.” Arguably, the Senate version is even meaner.

We are told the ACA is in a death spiral, and that is probably true. It is not perfect – and no one says it is, or ever was. In the face of continued Republican intransigence, no fixes are likely. However, when they do the autopsy, they will find that foul play was involved.

The ACA did not die a natural death. It was murdered, with premeditation, by politicians who never wanted to see it to succeed in the first place.

(In writing this column, I am much indebted to the historical perspective provided in an article by Norm Ornstein, which ran in the July 6, 2015, issue of The Atlantic magazine.)

“What a long, strange trip it’s been” (Grateful Dead, 1970).

The recent five-day period, bookended by the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before a congressional investigatory committee and the later testimony of current U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions before the same committee, fits the 47-year-old lyric like a glove.

Of course, the main events were the testimony of Comey; Indiana’s own Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence; Admiral James Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, the secretive NSA; and Sessions.

Prior to Comey’s testimony, our president was reported in a New York Times story as having told Russian diplomats during a meeting in the Oval Office that he had “just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real ‘nut job,” and firing him “relieved great pressure,” alluding to the multiple investigations into Russian tampering in our last presidential election.

Comey really didn’t come across that way.

Did he put himself in the best light possible? Wouldn’t anyone sitting in that witness chair? But was he credible? Most assuredly. A “nut job?” Don’t think so.

The veracity of the two incidents that might amount to obstruction of justice – the one-on-one meeting with the president after the president shoos everyone else out of the room and then expresses the “hope” that Comey would go easy on Mike Flynn, and then, the demand for a “loyalty oath” – remain unchallenged.

The president, in the process of justifying his actions on his Twitter account, essentially admitted that both incidents occurred pretty much as claimed, although in his opinion, he believed he was acting within his powers as president.

In the course of his testimony, Comey dropped some other names into the hopper, which is where the fun really begins.

Coats, Rogers, and eventually Sessions quickly “volunteered” to testify before the congressional committee to “set the record straight” and defend themselves against any impugning of their characters.

The fact testimony is “voluntary” places the volunteers among the angels. They got to sit and receive the plaudits of committee members from both sides of the aisle thanking them for appearing voluntarily, and then got further thanked profusely for their past services.

Without interruption, they gave their version of events which, like Comey’s, qualified them for wings and a halo.

Then came the questions, the answering of which was the reason why they were there in the first place.

But whenever the questions involved their interactions with the president, they suddenly become as reticent as maidens on a tour bus full of reprobates.

Not a bad gig. Testify to whatever you want, and don’t testify to whatever you don’t.

Let’s particularly consider Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the quintessential Southern cavalier.

To paraphrase his opening statement (and exercising a whole lot of poetic license): “My goodness, I just can’t believe all these scurrilous things people are saying about me. Why, I do believe it’s giving me the vapors. Mercy, mercy. Bless their little hearts, they know not of which they speak.”

To his credit, Sessions actually made a plausible argument why Comey could have been fired over his handling of the Hillary Clinton affair.

It would have helped if he had championed those reasons in 2016, but back then Sessions was most likely applauding Comey’s actions. It would have helped further if he had not been hung out to dry by a president who said on national TV that his real motivation for firing Comey was his handling of the Russia investigation.

Sessions launched into a convoluted and incomprehensible discussion of the operation of the concept of executive privilege, and unspecified departmental policies, Apparently, according to Sessions, if the executive (i.e., the president) has not invoked executive privilege, government officials, standing in for the executive, have the right to refuse to answer questions from a congressional committee until the executive, after the fact, decides whether he wants to invoke executive privilege retroactively.

Really?

The ball is in the committee’s hands, or in those of the special counsel, if they have the stomach for it. If subpoenas are issued in a criminal investigation, the main holding in U.S. vs. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974) appears to be on point as to claims of executive privilege. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said, “We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

In other words, if the issue is pushed, odds are the content of those conversations of Coats, Rogers, Sessions, or anyone else, with the president, and relevant to the Russia investigation, are going to be subject to discovery down the road.

In one final, sad, footnote to Sessions testimony, in an exchange with Senator Angus King (I-Maine), the attorney general agreed that the tampering of the U.S. election by a foreign power was a serious matter.

King asked: “You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election?”

To which Sessions responded, “No, I don’t believe I ever did.”

Given the national security reports that came out as far back as last October, so much for intellectual curiosity, and aggressively protecting the sanctity of our election process.

As noted in the beginning, “what a long strange trip it’s been.”

And how much stranger will it become?

Politicians acting badly has an ancient pedigree.

On March 15, 44 B.C., Julius Caesar, Dictator for Life of the Roman Republic, was unexpectedly term-limited by a knife-wielding group of his colleagues.

If Aaron Burr had not blown away his famous political nemesis Alexander Hamilton on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804, odds are my granddaughters would not be singing, over and over, and word for clever word, the lyrics of a certain current Broadway smash hit.

On May 22, 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina using a “light cane,” described at the United States Senate website (www.senate.gov) as being “of the type used to discipline unruly dogs,” entered the Senate Chamber and proceeded to beat unconscious anti-slavery advocate Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Brooks would later survive a censure motion, resign from Congress, and be reelected, only to die shortly thereafter. Sumner would recover and serve in the Senate for another 18 years.

The website, commenting on the fallout from this incident, notes: “The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled toward the catastrophe of civil war.”

On the evening of May 24, 2016, in the town of Bozeman, Montana, a footnote was added to the list of politicians behaving badly.

GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte took offense at a persistent reporter’s question.  With digital recorder recording, Gianforte cursed the reporter, grabbed him by the neck with both hands, and “body slammed” him to the floor, breaking the reporter’s glasses. Gianforte would be cited for assault by the local sheriff.

The Gianforte campaign quickly released a self-serving version of the event that essentially blamed the reporter: “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.”

A news team, ironically from the local Fox News affiliate, witnessed the incident and later debunked the Gianforte description of what had transpired. Fox News is generally not noted for having a liberal bias.

Whether the characterization of the reporter as being a “liberal” was seen as justifying the attack is unclear. However, the campaign was quick to report the next day that an additional $100,000 in campaign contributions had been received overnight, the implication being that there was support for Gianforte’s takedown of the reporter.

Speaking from the personal experience of 25 years in public service, I can attest that reporters can sometimes be bothersome, persistent, obnoxious, or even combative. According to eyewitnesses, none of these adjectives appear to be applicable to the reporter in this instance.

There is a reason why the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights establishes the right to a free press that is independent, uncensored, and upon occasion, even aggressive in the pursuit of a story.

The framers of the Constitution were aware of the potential for press excesses, but they felt that danger paled in comparison to the excesses that could be perpetrated by those in power.

What should cause concern is that candidate Gianforte felt enabled to do what he did because the public might find his conduct acceptable, or at the least, not fatal to his candidacy.

The fault lies with us, the public.

We are complicit in the coarsening of our public dialogue. If we are unwilling to set limits on what is acceptable conduct, any conduct becomes acceptable

The framers gave us a tool to enforce limits on the conduct of those who would hold public office.

That tool is called the vote, and it should be used to encourage those willing to engage in rational dialogue and debate. It should also be used consign those who are not willing to engage in rational dialogue and debate to the swamp from whence they came.

This is a proposition upon which both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree.

If not, we have bigger problems than a reporter having his glasses broken.

This is one progressive who is not calling for the president’s head on a platter. Not yet … and perhaps not ever.

I have my reasons.

First of all, we got what a lot of us said we wanted – a businessman who would run the country like a business. Problem is, we failed to read the fine print. There are different kinds of businessmen. This one was the CEO of a closely held family enterprise. He had no board of directors or stockholders to whom he was responsible. In all things, what he wanted was the beginning and end of the story.

No one should be surprised that he is running his administration in the same manner. No one should be surprised that the short-term results have been chaotic, because even presidents don’t get everything they want. Perhaps the man has the intellectual flexibility to learn from his mistakes. There is little evidence of this, but, nevertheless, he is entitled to a reasonable “breaking in” period.

Which leads to the second reason, the 63 million Americans who voted for radical change. A shakeup in the status quo. A disruption in the force. A draining of the swamp.

They were promised that the “forgotten people” would be forgotten no longer.

The president’s words, not mine.

According to polls and mainstream media reports, most of those folks think he is doing just fine. What I just characterized as chaos, they would point to as evidence that the shakeup that was advertised is taking place as promised. I might not agree with that assessment, but I must admit that such an alternate view exists.

This being the case, what would happen if the president were driven from office? Sixty-three million Americans would scream that their election had been stolen by those same nebulous “elites” who have, in their opinion, been ignoring them, and their priorities, for literally generations.

The country is split into warring camps as it is. We don’t need to exacerbate an already volatile situation.

The better course may be to let things play out.

If the president can deliver on his promises, good. If not, well, that is a conclusion his supporters will have to come to for themselves, because so far no amount of evidence to the contrary seems to shake their belief in their champion, even if he is a flawed champion, arguably undeserving of the support and loyalty gifted to him by his base.

A third reason is the Russian connection.

The possibility that a foreign country conspired to affect the outcome of the 2016 election is too serious to leave to partisan political wrangling. It is of critical importance that the evidence be followed to its conclusion in a non-partisan manner by properly trained professionals having bipartisan support.

The goal should not be to replay the 2016 election. That one is in the books. The goal should be to make sure the results of the elections to be held in 2018, 2020, and beyond, are accepted as being legitimate beyond any reasonable doubt.

If, in the course of that investigation, evidence of collusion or coordination between the president’s campaign, or people connected to the campaign, and a foreign government is uncovered, those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We would want it to serve as a warning to anyone who might be tempted to take advantage of offers of outside “help” in the future – because such offers will always be there if the potential exists to disrupt our form of government.

After Watergate, 40 members of the Nixon Administration were either indicted or jailed. If warranted, the current investigation should be equally robust. If necessary, another tower bearing the president’s name can be dedicated within the confines of a suitable federal penitentiary to hold those found guilty of subverting our democracy.

I sincerely hope the president is not personally implicated in any of this, or that what he has done to date falls short of offenses for which he could be impeached and convicted.

Which brings me to my final reason.

The president of the United States does not operate in a vacuum. There are two other branches designed to check and balance the executive branch. If they do their job, and that is a significant “if,” they should be able to checkmate any heavy-handed excesses promoted by the current executive.

Should they fail to meet their constitutional duties until there is no choice remaining but to impeach, convict, and remove the incumbent, standing in the wings is the vice president, and he is a different proposition entirely.

Our vice president has assumed the role of a political bobble head, dutifully nodding agreement with whatever emanates from the president’s mouth. When not doing that, he is seen hovering in the background like a sommelier anxiously waiting to see if the wine is acceptable.

The rest of the country may not know him well, but Hoosiers should.

Whatever you say about the current president, one thing he is not is an ideologue. He appears to operate transaction by transaction, or deal by deal, without any underlying, unifying philosophy.

The vice president is the exact opposite. He is a proud member of the Elmer Gantry wing of the Republican Party. He has proven himself more than willing to blur the line between church and state in order to achieve political gain. He is much more attuned to the priorities of the one percent than to the rest of us. His social conservative based views on matters such as women’s issues, immigration, gender issues, public health, public schools, among others, are outside of the American political mainstream.

He has had his eyes on the presidency for years.

While the current president is about as subtle as a bull in a china shop, the vice president is as smooth as silk. While the current president has problems with Congress, the vice president is of Congress.

In terms of who can advance a national agenda more concerned with numbers than people, the already wealthy over the squeezed middle class, or the people still forgotten, there is no contest.

The current president may occasionally appear clueless, but the vice president is always on message, and for ordinary Americans, that message spells danger.

Which is why this progressive is not calling for the president’s head on a platter. Not yet … and perhaps not ever.

And so, the torch of health care reform has been passed from the Republican caucus in the House, to their Republican counterparts in the Senate.

Or is it not a torch, but rather, a flickering fuse burning down towards the main explosive charge?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has put together a welcoming committee of thirteen GOP senators to shepard the bill passed by the House through the gauntlet awaiting it in the Senate.

You would think, after the debacle of House Republican leadership cramming an ill-conceived and flawed bit of legislation down not only the throats of a Democrat House minority, but also down the throats of whatever moderate voices remain within the Republican caucus, you would think that Mitch would make some attempt, however cosmetic, to include a broader spectrum of stakeholders in the Senate group charged with the primary responsibility of making a silk purse out of this particular sow’s ear.

You would think, but you would be wrong.

A significant chunk of health care has to do with “women’s” issues, and those issues are not confined to reproductive topics. There are five Republican women in the Senate—some of whom have staked out positions on national health care. Not a one of them is included in this working group. Not to worry, ladies, you can come into the boy’s tree house from time to time upon invite—not just all the time.

Of course, it might just be that McConnell is afraid of adding a female to the mix who might, nevertheless, prove to be persistent.

Admittedly, it is hard for Republicans to find a person of color to add a little diversity to the reception committee, but there is one African-American senator, who happens to have a background in insurance.

You won’t find him in the group picture either.

What you do find is the GOP establishment’s country club view of the world. All white. All male. All but one over 50. All relatively well off, and none of whom have much in common with the ordinary Americans who care little about the politics of health care, but have a vital interest in having access to health care—beyond using the local emergency room as a primary care facility.

These are the folks with whom Mitch is comfortable, and comfort level is what apparently trumps all else.

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the primary motivation behind this exercise is political in nature and not public health policy, this beginning does not bode well for a happy ending.

If, as appears to be the case, the intent is to force matters to a vote without any effort to involve the 48 Democrat members of the Senate in the process, the stage is set for health care to become a political ping pong ball batted back and forth depending on which party has legislative control at any given time.

This is not a promising scenario.

Democrats say they are the first to admit that the Affordable Care Act, the nation’s current health plan, has significant flaws. You would think it would be a good idea for Mitch to force the Democrat’s hand by having them identify those perceived flaws to explore the possibility of finding common ground.

Of course, there is no incentive for Democrats to cooperate if the only outcome acceptable to the GOP is to rip out the Affordable Care Act root and branch.

Which appears to be the case.

Admittedly, the fact health care is complicated should not have come as a surprise to anyone—but the issue is not insurmountable. There are many ways to achieve the end.

For example, look up International.Commonwealthfund.org for a brief description of how 18 other countries, including the United States, handle the issue.

More about that later.