US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

You make a persuasive case.

[Rusty Edge]

Thanks. It was sincere.
Here's an opinion piece from The Post's conservative voice-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/08/ten-mistakes-reince-priebus-made/#comments

Ten mistakes Reince Priebus made
 By Jennifer Rubin July 8

When the postmortem on the GOP 2016 presidential race is conducted there will be plenty of blame to go around. Candidates ran shoddy races, attacking one another and hanging around far too long. Voters gave way to anger, nihilism and rank prejudice. Elected leaders were reticent to speak up  But it was Chairman Reince Priebus who will long be remembered for his series of spectacular errors. To review:

1. Priebus never understood that [Sleezebag] had neither the means nor the inclination to run as a third candidate. Spend his own money?! Priebus put the entire party at [Sleezebag]’s mercy by creating a suicide pact (the pledge) with [Sleezebag]. Like the JCPOA, once the pledge was in place it was vital to keep it there. Priebus then began a dangerous approach in which appeasement, rationalization and out-and-out water-carrying were the rule.

2. Rather than going on bended knee to [Sleezebag] to extract the pledge, Priebus should have used leverage (free debate time, access to RNC fundraising, rhetorical support and defense from the RNC) to demand [Sleezebag] cease attacks on fellow Republicans, improve his tone and show some understanding of both policy and political mechanics. If Al Gore had shown up to run in the GOP race would Priebus have sat idly by? And yet that’s essentially what he did when a man who had no particular loyalty to the party moved in for a hostile takeover.

3. Pledges for any candidate were a bad idea. Kevin Williamson wrote recently: “The Republicans who promised to support the nominee no matter who made an error in judgment. That’s forgivable. But now it is time to admit the error, step up, and do the right thing.” Explicitly putting partisan loyalty over conscience, conservative principles and reciprocal loyalty from the candidate was another grave error from Priebus.

4. Using national polling — essentially name recognition — to determine the debate lineup was a gross error, giving [Sleezebag] every incentive to spend his time on TV and presenting him, literally, with center stage. Likewise, the undercard debate should have ended much sooner.

5. Priebus should have spoken out loud and clear when [Sleezebag] slurred Mexicans, POWs, women, and Muslims. Priebus utterly failed to act as the guardian of the party’s values.

6. The field of debate participants should have narrowed faster and more dramatically, giving candidates time to attack [Sleezebag] and forcing [Sleezebag] to come up with cogent answers.

7. Priebus immediately sided with [Sleezebag] in a battle with delegates who may want to oust him. That’s not Priebus’s role. He is a servant of the party and of the elected delegates. Whatever rules they decide upon he must implement in good faith.
8.  Priebus repeatedly minimized and denigrated Republicans unhappy with [Sleezebag], who won only a plurality of the votes. If Priebus works for the party he should at least show respect and listen to the majority of Republicans who did not vote for [Sleezebag] and now don’t want him as the nominee. Priebus, once again, seemed to think he worked for [Sleezebag], not the GOP.

9. Priebus should have written into the party’s fundraising agreement with [Sleezebag] an obligation for the billionaire (who showed no inclination to raise much money in the primary) to raise a reasonable amount of money (a few hundred million dollars at least) and if not, cut a check to the RNC to fund the campaign. With no history of fundraising and notoriously opaque finances [Sleezebag] was allowed to snooker Priebus, leaving the GOP with a fraction of the money Clinton will have.

10. Like every other candidate in the last 40 years [Sleezebag] should have been required to release his tax returns. If he refused, he should have been excluded from the debates, and eventually from the convention. [Sleezebag] was never required to give up information that was vital to voters’ decision-making. Even worse, to this day [Sleezebag] is still involved intimately in his business ventures. That’s a horrible conflict of interest.

There are probably a few missteps I am forgetting. Priebus’s spinelessness may well result in an irretrievably divided party, not to mention a humiliating loss in a critical, entirely winnable election. Priebus’s successor had better learn some lessons from 2016. He or she might also consider using super delegates. It turns out party grownups are needed. This cycle they’ve been AWOL.


===============================

Tax returns should be a pre-condition to debate participation.

[Rusty Edge]

Here's a lengthy interview which covers some new topics.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gary-johnson-ill-cut-your-taxes/article/2595868

Gary Johnson: I'll cut your taxes
By Gabby Morrongiello, Sean Higgins • 7/10/16 12:01 AM

 


Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, is the Libertarian Party's 2016 presidential candidate and poised to make an impact in the national election. When he is included in four-way polls with Donald [Sleezebag] and Hillary Clinton, he averages 7 points, according to RealClearPolitics.
 
Johnson is trying to build on his momentum by filling the void for a free-market candidate in this election, now that [Sleezebag] and Clinton have embraced anti-trade economic populism. Johnson laid out his agenda in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
 
Washington Examiner: This is an unusual election cycle in which we have two major party candidates who are flatly running against trade. Can you give us your thoughts? The Libertarian Party is understood to be free trade. Do you think it should be complete and unfettered?
 
Johnson: I do think it should be complete and unfettered. Free markets, I think that's how we dominate the world. But that said, I'm looking to get elected president of the United States. If I get elected president of the United States, if legislation passes that makes trade better, count on my signature.

Examiner: So let's start with Trade Promotion Authority. On the one hand, it does make trade deals easier to get the approval from the U.S., on the other hand, there is the argument that Congress is usurping its role by giving away some of the authority to amend trade deals. Where do you stand on that? Do you think TPA was a good idea?
 
Johnson: Well, I may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors combined when I was governor of New Mexico. So I go into these trade deals skeptical. Is it promoting crony capitalism, is it government interference in a situation that would work better as free market?

Well, I think that's really the case all the time. But what's currently in place and how this legislation is going to improve on that, I don't even really want to say if this in fact will or will not improve on it.
 
Now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, I'm skeptical that that contains a whole lot of crony capitalism. You know, government interference. But people that are helping me out with this, people that I really respect, say that the legislation actually improves on trade. Given that, I'd have to say I was going to sign it, that I would sign it, but devil's in the details and I hope people would appreciate that I would be that skeptic at the table.

Examiner: So it's sort of a tentative yes, but you're still not completely 100 percent sold?
 
Johnson: I'm not completely, 100 percent sold, but I will tell you, all the people that I greatly respect that are helping me out on this say it's an improvement and I should support it.
 
Examiner: Is it difficult for you at all to take that message to workers who have seen their jobs move overseas or who have lost their jobs because of — or who attribute the loss of their job to — trade?
 
Johnson: Well, what's not being seen are the opportunities that are created with free markets. The other day, somebody was talking to me about steel and the fact that, "Well, China's dumping steel on the United States. That's jobs that steel producers in the United States lose out on." Well, what if China wants to subsidize their steel, who benefits from that? Well, it's us buying their steel and being able to build more steel buildings.
 
How many jobs are going to get created because of a steel building erection taking place because we're able to buy steel 30 percent cheaper than what we should be able to buy it for because China's subsidizing it?


I just think any subsidization that happens, in the case of China, for example, we're the ones that are going to be at an advantage and we should try and take advantage of that and ultimately, it's not sustainable on their end. But that's free market as opposed to government injecting itself.
 
Examiner: One of the main arguments made against it is that it makes it easier for U.S. companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries. Is that something that the government can and should be preventing, if it can be prevented at all?
 
Johnson: Well, as president of the United States, when it comes to tax policy, count on me to sign legislation that simplifies taxes or reduces taxes. If I could wave a magic wand, I would eliminate corporate tax, income tax and abolish the IRS and would replace all of it with one, single federal consumption tax.
 
I ask everyone to look at the Fair Tax, which is a proposed piece of legislation on how to dot the Is, cross the Ts when it comes to accomplishing one federal consumption tax.

 

But if we have zero corporate tax in this country, tens of millions of jobs will get created in this country as opposed to anywhere else because why would you start up or grow a business or jobs anywhere in the world other than the United States if there was a zero corporate tax rate?
 
Examiner: One issue in particular that is really important to young people is college debt. And just today we saw Hillary Clinton announce that she's expanding her debt-free college proposals. Bernie Sanders has said, "Let's eliminate college tuition altogether." What is your plan to rein in college debt and if anything, offer students some relief from the debt they already carry?
 
Johnson: Well, the main reason for the high cost of college tuition is guaranteed government student loans. If guaranteed government student loans were to have never existed, I guarantee you college tuition would be half of what it is today. Because college tuition, colleges and universities are absolutely immune to market forces, supply and demand.
 
Government has skewed the supply side of this by guaranteeing government student loans. I think that students have been sold a bill of goods, and when it comes to interest rates, as president, I would love to see a piece of legislation that somehow fixes the interest rate at a much lower level than what students are currently on the hook for now.
 
If you have a student loan and it's a 7 percent interest, that's a doubling of the debt in 10 years.


Examiner: Democrats and liberals are pushing for a higher minimum wage, as high as $15 an hour at the federal level. Some states and cities have adopted that. What do you think the minimum wage should be, or should we have one at all?
 
Johnson: I think everybody's missing the boat. I think we should go straight to $75 an hour. I mean, come on, let's really be prosperous ... Well, I think when you say "$75 an hour," I think people get it. "Well, gee, we can't do $75." Well, how is it that we can do $15? Come on. Minimum wage is minimum wage, and the government's going to determine that minimum wage?
 
I do not think government should be involved in this. I think it eliminates jobs, I think that people starting out in the job market, that they should be given all the opportunity they can to get the jobs that may or may not be available. But government picking a number, and they're going to pick $15, and gee how does that work with the accompanying inflation that always goes along with this?
 
That in my lifetime, I'm sure that a McDonald's hamburger at some point is going to be $6.
 
Examiner: Would you keep the existing $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage, or would you move to abolish it?


Johnson: I would sign legislation to abolish it. I don't think it should be established and I, having been in business, having employed a thousand people myself, the minimum wage was never an issue. Meaning, somebody that showed up on time and wore clean clothes, you know what? That was not a minimum-wage job. That was something much higher.
 
Examiner: Getting a bit back to some economic issues, we've had four states in the last four years adopt right-to-work laws, the most since the 1950s. Unless I'm mistaken, New Mexico doesn't have such a law. Do you support them? Do you think it should be a national standard? What do you think of that issue?
 
Johnson: Well, I support it, absolutely. I think that, you know, you shouldn't have to belong to a union to get a job and it's just that simple. It doesn't exist in New Mexico. I think that states that have adopted right-to-work prosper more.
 
Examiner: Are there any changes or amendments that you would make to the National Labor Relations Act?
 
Johnson: Well, you know, devil's in the details. But Congress could certainly be doing those kinds of things, and I'd certainly be amenable to looking at changes, and by changes it's just making it easier to be able to get a job.
 
Examiner: Can entitlements be reformed in any meaningful way? I mean is it politically feasible?


Johnson: I believe so, in my heart of hearts. Medicaid and Medicare both need to be devolved to the states. As governor of New Mexico, if the federal government would have given me a fixed amount of money, say based on the prior year and that I needed to draw new lines of eligibility to make that money work.
 
In my heart of hearts, those that do need a safety net would have received it, and we'd have done it for a lot less money. I say 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, the states, there will be some fabulous success if we'll do that, there will also be horrible failure, but we'll all emulate the success.
 
And Social Security, I mean raising the retirement age for starters. Look, it's insolvent in the future. It's going to be insolvent. It has to be addressed.
 
And if we're going to put our heads in the sand, electing a president that's not going to acknowledge that and take part in the debate and the discussion over how do we reform Social Security so it is viable in the future ... Look, I think we all understand that. But [Sleezebag] and Clinton don't, or this is somehow the ticket to getting elected and then re-elected.
 
Examiner: The Labor Department recently changed the rules for overtime. They basically doubled the number of people who are covered by the rule for time-and-a-half after 40 hours. Do you think that was the right thing to do?


Johnson: No, it's not. It's a decision. I mean, as long as you're not forced to have to work, you know? Forcing an employee to have to work, well that's the time-and-a-half. I'm not sure what these new rules are that you're talking about, but based on the sound of it, it's just going to amount to less overtime.
 
People not having the opportunity to work, because employers are going to decide that it costs too much money. They're just not going to expand.
 
Examiner: Do you still support a national sales tax?

 
Johnson: Well, I wouldn't call it a national sales tax, [but instead a] consumption tax. One federal consumption tax, if I could wave my magic wand. Now, the problem with a national sales tax in and of itself is if we adopt a national sales tax, then it's just going to be an add-on tax to what we currently have, and that's not something that I'm proposing here at all.
 
Abolish income tax, abolish corporate tax, eliminate the 16th amendment, which allows for income tax in the first place, and then convert all that over to a federal consumption tax. Imagine life without the IRS.
 
Examiner: Janet Yellen. What do you think of the job she has done, and is there anything you would do to reform the Federal Reserve?
 
Johnson: Well, the things that I think would be obtainable would be returning the Federal Reserve to its ... mandate from 1977, to deal with inflation. That is as opposed to its dual mandate now to deal with inflation and full employment, which, in my opinion, are counterintuitive.
 
Examiner: Do you think the Labor Department's monthly numbers for unemployment ought to be adjusted to include the underemployed and those marginally attached to the workforce?
 
Johnson: I do think so, and it should also include all of those who just plain left the workforce.
 
Examiner: What about the Dodd-Frank Act? Would you repeal that or change it in anyway?


Johnson: I would sign any legislation that would make things simpler. With regard to the 2008 financial collapse ... those institutions should have been allowed to fail. It would not have resulted in a collapse of the system. They should have been allowed to fail. They weren't.
 
Examiner: This from your own campaign website: '"Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government's efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all."
 
You seem to be throwing up your hands there. Are you saying the federal government doesn't have a role in this?
 
Johnson: The role, as far as the Environmental Protection Agency, is to identify health or safety concerns with regard to emissions. I think right now what is happening with climate change, what is happening with the coal industry, is that coal has been bankrupted. It has been bankrupted by the free market.
 
As low as the price of coal is today, natural gas is even lower. So, no new coal plants are going to be built ... Those that exist now are being grandfathered in [under the EPA regulations].
 
So, coal, the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the world, is dead. Coal is dead. And the free market did it because we, as consumers, are demanding less carbon emissions.


Examiner: What is your opinion of voter identification laws?
 
Johnson: The devil is in the details, but I think making it harder to vote is the wrong route. So, I think voter identification laws are, for the most part, to restrict immigrants from voting. I mean legal immigrants in this case.
 
It is just to make it harder for people to vote? We should make it easier to vote. And voter fraud is, I think, incredibly overblown. Is there some? I am certain there is some, but it is inconsequential.
 
Examiner: Last week, the Supreme Court effectively killed the president's immigration executive order. While understanding that you are pro-immigration, there is also a question of the constitutional balance of powers there. Does the president have the right to issue that kind of executive order?
 
Johnson: Yes, he was. I also understand the separation of powers and the fact that the Supreme Court rules. So this is more tantamount than ever that this issue needs to be dealt with. I am in the camp that we need to make it as easy as possible to get a work visa. Not a green card. Not citizenship. A work visa.
 
Examiner: Do you believe, more broadly speaking, that the president ought to be able to circumvent Congress through expansive interpretations of executive power?


Johnson: No, but that is the continual battle that will always rage: the separation of powers. It will be eternal in our system of government.
 
Examiner: Assuming you did get into the White House, how would you be able to manage with a Congress divided by two opposing parties, neither of which owes you any loyalty?
 
Johnson: Actually, I think that would be the bind: You could challenge both sides to be good at what they are supposed to be good at. Republicans, they say they are for smaller government. Well, the smaller government they choose and expansion of the government in the areas where they want to expand, like the military.
 
And then the Democrats ... We have got one of the highest incarceration rates of any country in the world. Why don't you do something about that? And our military interventions without a congressional declaration of war? Come on, Democrats, that is what you are supposed to be all about, right?
 
No, I think it would be a great opportunity to actually bridge the gap.

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality

"UNDERSTANDING HILLARY Why the Clinton America sees isn't the Clinton colleagues know."

It's a rather long one, complete with video clips, and it stood out from headlines like "56% disapprove of FBI decision"," The majority think Hillary should have been charged", etc.


Strangely, it determines that she's a "good listener" and she's a super compartmentalizer in person.

So , if you're looking for a fresh perspective on the "real Hillary Clinton" you might find this interesting... or perplexing...or something.

[Buster's Uncle]

I'll have to have a look.  The Vanity Fair article I linked a few months ago -that talked about how she was in the hallway v. in the room with all the tall men- was fascinating reading, and I don't see a downside to gaining a better understanding of this person we're about to get stuck with for at least one hitch...

[Rusty Edge]

I don't see a downside to gaining a better understanding of this person we're about to get stuck with for at least one hitch...

Can't argue against that logic.

[Rusty Edge]

An MSNBC opinion piece from Jesse Ventura about third party candidates. He speaks with authority, because he's done it successfully.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/jesse-ventura-why-im-voting-for-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-for-president-commentary.html

Why I'm voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota and author of "Sh*t Politicians Say: The Funniest, Dumbest, Most Outrageous Things Ever Uttered By Our Leaders"

I've always had the belief that you vote for someone you believe in. When you cast your vote, you want that person to be president. You don't vote for one politician so that another doesn't become president. And yet here you have an instance where people don't want either the Democrat or Republican nominee as president! People are going to vote for Donald [Sleezebag] because they don't want Hillary Clinton — and people are going to vote for Clinton because they don't want [Sleezebag]. That's a horrible way to pick the next commander-in-chief.


What astounds me is that the American public willingly accepts that these are the two choices the political gangs that run our country are offering us. And until this country wakes up and realizes that there are in fact more than two choices, despite what mainstream media shoves down our throats, then this is what we're going to get.


Ron Paul mentioned that he's probably going to vote Libertarian this year. He should. After all, he was their presidential nominee back in 1988. Come November, I will join him, voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson again, just like I did in 2012. He's on the ballot in all 50 states, and this year I hope voters won't be lemmings. This is the year for a third party to rise, if there ever was one. This is the time for the people to stand up and say, "We've had enough, and we're still in charge." Whether voters exercise that option, we'll have to see.

I like everything Gary Johnson has said so far. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal – something neither Democrats nor Republicans can offer. He also has a solid plan for bringing our troops home and restoring our economy. And, like me, he's a firm believer that marijuana should be legal.

If you dare sit there and say a third party can't win the presidency, then I want to know how many times you've won the lottery. Seriously, if you already know the future, how come you aren't banned from purchasing lotto tickets? Well, I have news for you: There are countries that actually care about political corruption and there are countries that actually do something about it. I'd be a proud American if I could say our country was on that list, but unfortunately we're not.

In 2016, the people of Iceland elected Guðni Jóhannesson for president. He is a history professor who has never been affiliated with a political party, not even when he announced his run for president. His presidential campaign came about after an anonymous source leaked the Panama Papers and exposed top Icelandic officials of tax evasion.

Iceland's prime minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, who was among those named in the Panama Papers, had to resign due to public pressure and the sitting president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who was in office for five straight terms (spanning a total of 20 years), announced in May 2016 that he would not seek re-election because his wife was implicated in the Panama Papers.

People, this is a man who had been president since 1996!

Yes, Iceland's president is the head of state and although he doesn't hold the same position as ours does, he is the only elected position chosen by the entire country. The president appoints the prime minister, who is the head of government, and the president does have a form of vetoing power. The point is this: The position is important enough for the fact that Jóhannesson ran without any party affiliation whatsoever to really matter.


To this day, president-elect Guðni Jóhannesson says he does not support any particular political party. What are his qualifications? He is an expert on political history, diplomacy, and Iceland's constitution. That's all it took for him to win with 39.1 percent of the vote, and he wasn't the only person running for president without party affiliation. Halla Tómasdóttir, a businesswoman, came in second place with 27.9 percent, and she also ran independent, without any party affiliation.


Imagine that! The people of Iceland actually had to become educated about what their presidential candidates stood for prior to voting for them.

Folks, Iceland's presidential elections took place on June 25, 2016, and there were 10 people on the ballot running for president! And in previous years, there have never been more than six presidential candidates on the ballot. Iceland has a population of 330,000 people and they've had as many as six people running for president prior to 2016? Yet here we are, the supposed leaders of the free world, limiting ourselves to two corrupt political parties because we don't believe a third option could win? In Iceland, there are so many political parties that the parliament has no choice but to compromise and work together. They have to form alliances in order to get anything done!


Granted, I know Iceland is a smaller country than the U.S. and I know their population demographics are much different, but wouldn't it make more sense that, in a smaller country, there would be far less choices than in a larger one? You could easily say why on earth would Iceland need that many political parties? Wouldn't that just divide the small country unnecessarily? Yet the divisions cause them to come together to find common ground.

Could you imagine if there were so many political parties in the U.S. that Congress saw a benefit in coming together to pass legislation — and that legislation would therefore represent what all the people actually wanted? Well, if We the People start to vote for third parties, then this will actually happen. I think of Iceland as a small-scale model for what we could accomplish if we stopped believing only two political parties are capable of running our country. I don't know who started that philosophy, but it's pathetically stupid. And for the record, I'm case in point as to how a third party can win: I ran for governor of Minnesota under the Reform Party against the Democrats and the Republicans. They both outspent me and they both were beating me in the polls, but enough people showed up and voted for me and I was elected. It's really that simple.

And how will the new president of Iceland, who has no party affiliation, be able to work with the system as a complete outsider?

He says that since he has no political bias, he'll be able work with everyone equally to do what's best for Iceland! So maybe we should really be working to abolish all political parties completely. If you don't go into office with an agenda — an agenda that is dictated to you by the special interest groups that got you elected in the first place — then you do what's best for the people. But first thing's first: This November, the time has come to vote for the third option.

[Spacy]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/635661/washington-post-new-york-times-just-took-trumps-side-fight-justice-ginsburg

Very odd twist.  Ginsburg (supreme court judge) slams [Sleezebag], but the NY Times and Washington Post (both very leftist publications) come back and slam Ginsburg for getting involved in politics. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Maybe those are all principled stands.  -Not the way I'd bet, but the mode of public behavior hasn't been entirely wiped out yet...

[Spacy]

I am sure it is principled stands.  Neither publication is supporting [Sleezebag] for prez, just saying that Ginsburg was dead wrong in getting involved in politics and supporting trumps statement that Ginsburg should resign her supreme court seat for the simple fact that she is making public political statements.

The fact that both publications are going so far as that says a lot, IMHO. 

[Buster's Uncle]

...She's speaking out of turn, of course, but that's more a matter of tradition than anything I'm aware of spelled out in the rules - though it probably should be...

It's the Pig, of course, and you HAVE to say something against him or not speak at all...

[Spacy]

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Code of Conduct, US Judges

Not a law by any means, but very clearly spelled out that judges shall not become political.  Back when I was working Civil Engineering, there was a city engineer I had to work with that got called out on similar code of conduct violations (nothing to do with me or any of my stuff - thankfully) that caused him to go before professional review committee's and eventually forced him out of the profession (which was a good thing as he was an arse of the 1st degree).  I don't know how judges as a profession works, but I can see something similar happening - and without [Sleezebag] being involved at all, just other judges going against her for violating their code of conduct. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Oh sure.  It makes all sorts of sense for there to be rules against it.  -I take a dim view of that bar association kind of stuff virtually having the force of law, but something that tends to mitigate against judicial positions being any more political than can be helped is hardly a bad thing, not least SCOTUS justices.

[Rusty Edge]

I can tell you that when I was a political cog, there was a strict separation at the county level, on up to state supreme court. Once a guy was elected, we never saw him again.

I particularly remember that at a banquet when the only GOP member of the state Supreme Court was standing for  re-election, he sent one of his Democratic colleagues to dine on the dias with the congressmen, and tell stories about him. The GOP state justice was never seen amongst us. He would not speak on his own behalf, shake hands or rub elbows with us as a strict matter of judicial ethics.

[Buster's Uncle]

I take it the Democrat had his back well?

Too bad there's not more of that kind of thing anymore...