Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 4:43 pm

Over the "salt and pepper bridge" and through the republic of which it stands bridging, oh, and yikes!

Yikes!  Circa 1988: If that/this is how they are professing our Constitutional Law, and now deep into Reagan Revolution, we got some problems.

Yikes!  Law school not the place for me to be as so much foundational positive change was possible for "doers" not trapped in law schools, like say from 1988-1991, like President Obama.  So much opportunity for marketing positive foundational change for those not needing a law degree and years so learning old ways to graduate only to a world of new ways.

How to get enough "range" and practical experience?

How yet?  To be, to be entrepreneurial and in carpentry and home construction and remodeling, and to a tag line for our republic and such opportunities honoring our founding fathers "practicalness" of "carpentry and remodeling services"?

So with windows on Boston and Con Law so professed how not but to continue to the practical study and appreciation seeking of at least Washington and Jefferson, by trying to learn to as many practical skills and trades and books as they had to use and consider while birthing our nation!  Exclamation?

Click click click clack clack clack — metro card or token — trespassing rightly and publicly over "Salt and Pepper" bridge under the Red Line, daily.  

Oh Rehnquist?  More laymen language, you think?  A renaissance in American jurism fitting for our United States of America "resetting" to core once accidental from its purpose and drafting to a becoming to sole superpower in the world?

What to do with the free Bar Review class and book I won at a raffle as a first year law student?  (I think it was at The Red Hat.)  I think I couldn’t pass on "free" course but could give book away.  Hey Chuck Cronin, how are you after all these years?  I haven’t found you on facebook like other old classmates.

I had much earlier decided I wanted to be "just like" Arthur M. Menadier, a Madison Ave top ad exec of running the Johnson & Johnson accounts for near 25 years until he retired in 1971 to having much time to spend with, me, with me just one of many of his grandsons.  Today, many know his era as MadMen show of those years, yet of less "responsible" accounts, so I hear.

Much method in my madness, and so much still little known or well considered even for the increased circulation for the New York Times during those years I fed political poetry to columnists to encourage op-ed and editorial spin for positive change considerings, global.  Hey, New York Times, I have been meaning to check, still, to see if even that was the last time you saw a rise in your newspaper circulation.  Thanks with going with my "objectivity" on first days of coverage then the day after first day of Democratic Party Convention with Clinton headlining.  I cannot forget A. M. Rosenthal’s (I think I remember correctly) noting like "wow: four in one (poem)" as for the one poem I sent with four separate columns/points encouraging.

So Governor Clinton did less to defeat President Bush than Perot and less still than President Bush did towards his own defeat.

So President Bush may have been afraid of "taking the heat as did Lincoln" and around considerations of a re-electing, and so before Senator Al Gore acted more parliamentary with his pronouncement and declarations to "President Bush deserves a second term" like coronating.  So?

And so how?  How so to as "King George" was meant derogatively, regularly?   Did you ask? 

So Senator Al Gore decided President Bush deserved a second term and opted out of checking public opinion with a fair challenge?  Did you ask?  

Did you read KINGS OF THE HILL?   Did you read Cheney’s query to wondering on considerations about fate of Bush?

Did you read?:

"What would happen then to the civil rights of ex-slaves?"

"Beyond that, who had given the president the right to determine the terms of Reconstruction?  Stevens wasn’t alone in thinking the matter belonged to Congress and in resenting executive excursion."

Did you ask?  Did you realize even yet that such concern over "reconstruction" in a era of exiting Iraq without undermining global justice and democracies/freedoms was a new "Reconstruction" and that Cheneys’ thoughts here quoted provided the way to defeat President Bush?  But for Bush being afraid of being re-elected defeating himself, sort of.  Have you wondered that President Clinton and the Dems may not have realised such until just now, or here abouts?

Our Constitution seemed to need a more basic professing then, and maybe now still.   Too complicated legalese to much of "establishment" renditions seemed a reasonable risk/danger.

Yes, we should still consider there was advantage to be gained by Saddam Hussein if he could "fight back" and even with a specific targeting of "prosecuting" Bush, right?   It would have involved a global chaos creating, but plays seemed "on the board" and for years into or all the way through the Clintons’ eight years, right?  Was it towards a way to drive America into political chaos and to acting beyond its Constitution and while near ignorant as a nation of peoples about complexity of Saddam’s world and specifically just the Muslim world around him in the Middle East?

Was the best play for such to find a presidential candidate "believable" as a "do nothing president" more content to be more domestic, and so as President Bush might have been able to carry, but only maybe with cooperation of Democrats, then unlikely?   Was Governor Clinton a "natural" for a "do nothing" need for a renaissance for America hardly of his making and character (on foreign policy priorities) in years America wise to follow Cheneys’ wisdom to Congress best to set the terms of any post war "reconstruction"?

Does it matter where "Bill" goes?  Does it matter that Republicans may have duped him and now such of explaining …?

Was it only that Bush feared his own re-electing?  Was it Perot?

If only Bush had spoken without concern when wondering at Lincoln memorial to a ponderance on if he might take the heat as did Lincoln and save a well spread democratizing from unrending even global, in warring, "civil" if to think of Muslim World as one? 

And so THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM was written to swing back national marketing to a confident Bush 41 of "deserving a second term" by election, if he thought his policies and principles didn’t stand a better chance to survive for more without him annointed "King George" anymore?  

First though, America needed to brave-up some Democrats and turn them into first string "respectable" opposition and while most were running away from running against a Republican with 87% popularity. 

The re-making of Governor Clinton was hoped not to have need past November 1992.  He was meant to be able to be flushed but as a "next-time" maybe.   He in so many ways was so wrong for those times and sensitivities.

Yes even in those days wondering on our founding fathers and our republic other than tired ways being taught "standard" around 1988 of Barry Obama seeking and years later when building or remodeling bathrooms and even installing and repairing toilets I was of remembering buying my first copy of United States Building Codes at the Massachusetts State House Bookstore. 

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.