Don't look now, but...

...Sen. Jefferson Sessions of Alabama (sounds like a Confederate general) just vaulted into third place in the betting on Paddy Power for Republican vice president:

Newt Gingrich, 6/4
Scott Brown, 7/2
Jeff Sessions, 4/1

So who is this guy? Well, his Wikipedia page begins like this (all emphasis mine):

Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III (born December 24, 1946) is the junior United States Senator from Alabama. First elected in 1996, Sessions is a member of the Republican Party.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III? Now that really sounds like a Confederate general!

From 1981 to 1993 he served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. President Ronald Reagan nominated him to a judgeship on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in 1986, but he was not confirmed. 

Not confirmed to the Federal bench, huh? Is that a red flag? I don't know; you tell me:

At Sessions' confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made several racist statements. One of those lawyers, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people."

Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Sessions said he thought the Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions later said that the comment was not serious, but apologized for it. Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,'" by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally. 

Figures also said that Sessions had called him "boy." He also testified that "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks.'"

Sessions became only the second nominee to the federal judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I wouldn't worry about it, though, because a recent piece in the Daily Caller reassures us, "Jeff Sessions: Donald Trump Will Attract Black And Hispanic Voters In General Election."

He should know about how "the blacks" and "the Hispanics" will vote, right?

What about Sen. Sessions's career in the Senate?

Sessions was ranked by National Journal in 2007 as the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator, siding strongly with the Republican Party on political issues. He supported the major legislative efforts of the George W. Bush administration, including the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, the Iraq War, and a proposed national amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, he was one of 25 senators to oppose the establishment of TARP. He has opposed the Democratic leadership since 2007 on most major legislation, including the stimulus bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he opposed both of President Barack Obama's nominees for the Supreme Court.

Sen. Sessions, 69, is a good ol' boy from the Deep South with one of the most conservative records in the Senate whose background on civil rights prevented him from a federal judgeship.

Sounds perfect.

The Tom Toles...

...cartoon of the day.

The Ironic Name of the Day...

...is actually the name of a school: Welborn Elementary in Kansas City, KS, where 89.3 percent of the students receive a free or discounted lunch.

From an article in the Times, "Kansas Parents Worry Schools Are Slipping Amid Budget Battles" (my emphasis):

Some school principals say they are resigned to making do with what money they have. At Welborn Elementary School in Kansas City, classes are held in two aging buildings and students dash back and forth during the day. Teachers keep a watchful eye on them as they cross an active parking lot between the buildings.

“I don’t need much,” said Jennifer Malone (above), the principal, one recent afternoon. “I just want a building.”

Will Trump vs. Clinton...

...really come down to which of them is the lesser of two evils? Or, more specifically, will it come down to who gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court?

That's not a bad way to think about it. Or is it?

On Friday night my wife and I were out with another couple and the conversation turned to -- surprise! -- politics. (Okay, I was the one who -- surprise! -- brought up the subject.) And, although the woman was a typical Fox News-brainwashed baby boomer, her husband (a former college professor) took a more nuanced view. He conceded that he probably wouldn't vote for either candidate but said he didn't want Mrs. Clinton to be the one to shape the Supreme Court for generations.

I nodded silently (I didn't argue, remember?), but wondered later, Will there ever be another justice elevated to the Supreme Court?

I'm only half-serious, but before I get to why, let me remind you of a post I wrote back in February in which I noted that three of the remaining eight Supreme Court justices will be 78 or older in November:

What if -- what if -- one or more of those other justices died? Or retired? What if, in the next year or so, they all did. (That's not so far-fetched is it? How many people do you know over the age of 77 that are still working?) Then what? Would President Obama get to replace any of them? Would the next president? Or would the Supreme Court of the United States just have to get by with five justices? Will any president ever get to nominate another Supreme Court justice? Or would the institution just wither away?

Then this morning I read in the Times, "Rulings and Remarks Tell Divided Story of an 8-Member Supreme Court" (my emphasis):

Justice Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, sounded less content with the current state of affairs on Thursday at a judicial conference in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

“Eight, as you know, is not a good number for a multimember court,” she said.

In his own remarks, Justice Breyer said an eight-member court was capable of deciding most cases, supporting the point with statistics from recent terms.

“We’re unanimous 50 percent of the time,” he said. “Twenty percent of the time we’re 5-4, and half of those are kind of random, not what the press would call the usual suspects.”

So in other words, maybe we do -- or maybe we don't -- need nine judges after all.

But let's get back to my original question: What if they never vote to approve another Supreme Court justice?

I mean, let's go through the various scenarios. First, if Trump or Clinton got elected with a 60-vote, filibuster-proof, super-majority in the Senate, their appointees would likely sail through. Fair enough. But how realistic is it that either party would gain a super-majority in the upper chamber? Worse, what if Trump or Clinton were elected with the other party in control of the Senate? Then, surely, nothing would happen.

I know what you're thinking: But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (above, left) said he's only "following a longstanding tradition of not filling vacancies on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year." If Mrs. Clinton were elected in November he'd certainly confirm her justices, right? Right?

I'm not so sure. This is the same crowd that accused President Obama of trying to "pack" the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by the radical practice of appointing judges to fill vacancies. Do you really think they wouldn't come up with some other cockamamie reason for blocking a President Clinton's SCOTUS nominees?

And, to be fair, after this year a Democratic Senate led by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York (above, right) probably wouldn't approve a President Trump's nominees, either. What goes around, comes around.

So, the bottom line is that maybe the Supreme Court isn't the biggest factor in this year's election. Maybe there will never be another nominee confirmed in our lifetime. Who knows?

Michael Dann, head...

...of programming at CBS in the 1960s, died at age 94.

To give you an idea of how dominant his network was, Dann's obit notes (my emphasis):

In the 1963-64 season, CBS had 14 of the top 15 shows, with [NBC's] “Bonanza” spoiling the clean sweep. In 1966-67, CBS had eight of the top 10 shows (“Bonanza” and ABC’s “Bewitched” filled out the list) and the following season, all of the top five series were on CBS.

Television was a little different back then.

Will Scott Brown...

...be Donald Trump's running mate? Who? You know, that guy who served out Ted Kennedy's term in the Senate?

According to Paddy Power, the leading candidates are:

Newt Gingrich, 6/4 odds
Scott Brown, 7/2
Joni Ernst, 8/1
Bob Corker, 8/1
John Kasich, 8/1

I used to think the establishment would "draft" Gov. Kasich of Ohio (click here). Then I considered the possibility of Gingrich (click here). Tennessee Sen. Corker hit my radar when I heard his name mentioned by both Jonathan Alter and Dan Senor (click here). And I even weighed the prospect of Sen. Ernst of Iowa (click here).

But I hadn't heard Scott Brown's name until recently. I mean, come on, the guy only served in the Senate for three years! (He was defeated for reelection by a little-known college professor by the name of Elizabeth Warren.) He's a . . . a . . . male bimbo -- a "mimbo."

And, yet, Scott Adams (whom I just discovered) thinks it will be Brown. Why? From his blog (my emphasis):

Of the remaining options, Scott Brown is probably the best fit to run for office on a ticket with the Master Persuader. Trump says he wants someone with legislative experience, and Brown has that. He’s also an ex-attorney with a good education. Smart. But he is also famously handsome. Attractiveness is more important than most other factors, whether we like to admit it or not.

Brown’s “flaws” as a Republican are the kind that will help in a general election. He’s in favor of abortion rights and banning assault rifles. Trump could make that work, one way or another. It plays to “common-sense conservative.”

Another advantage Brown has is his last name. As silly as this sounds, it makes him seem less white. Science tells us that people are more influenced by names than common sense would suggest. For example, people with so-called “lower class” names such as Justin are less likely to get job interviews. People named Dennis are more likely to become dentists, according to studies.* And my guess is that people named Trump are more likely to be associated with winning (trumping). By this same line of thinking, Brown would take some of the white off of Trump. That could help in the general election. And yes, I am totally serious. People trained in persuasion would likely agree.

As I said, predicting a VP choice is nearly impossible until the last minute because the situation is fluid. A candidate might need some help in a key state, based on current polling. Or the opponent might open up a new line of attack that needs a defense. A lot can change in a few weeks.

But as of today, and according to the Master Persuader filter, I put the odds at 90% than Trump picks Brown as his running mate.

Scott Adams is not only...

...the creator of the comic strip Dilbert, but also an author, blogger and "trained hypnotist."

Huh? What?

That's right. In a recent piece in Slate, "They Totally Knew: The People Who Foresaw the Rise of Donald Trump," Mr. Adams is quoted as saying (all emphasis mine):

 “I have a background as a trained hypnotist and I’ve been studying persuasion and influence in all its forms—everything from advertising and marketing to you name it—for decades. I’ve gone deeper than most people in the art of influence..." 

Now, I know what you're thinking: That's fascinating. But why should I care?

Because the quote concludes by saying:

...and when I started watching [Donald] Trump I realized early that what looked like the random behavior of a clown to people who were untrained, was almost pitch perfect persuasion.”

If you'll recall, I quoted Adams in a post on Friday:

If you imagine politics as a stick fight, all other stick fights have been won by a person with a stick. But here was Trump who said, ‘I read the rules and there’s nothing against bringing a flamethrower.’

I haven't read the comics in years and so was barely familiar with Adams, but I thought that was really interesting -- and scary. Scary because:

Adams thinks Trump will win the general election in a “landslide.” 

So imagine my surprise when Adams appeared as a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, a show I never, ever miss.

And you know what? I went from scared to terrified.

Not really. (I still believe in an America that will reject a demagogue like Mr. Trump.) But you should visit Adams's blog anyway. And keep in mind:

I’ll remind readers that I have disavowed all of the candidates. My political views don’t line up with any of them. My interest is in Trump’s persuasion skills.

One of my personal favorites was a post, "About Those Trump Policy Details":

It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people don’t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact. Science knows that free will is an illusion. Trump knows it too. I say that about Trump with confidence because you can’t be a Master Persuader until you understand that people are fundamentally irrational.

This one hit home in particular because my wife and I had just gone out to dinner on Friday night with a couple from Milwaukee in their seventies. Since the man was once a history professor at Stanford and USC I couldn't help asking him about the current race and Trump in particular. I wasn't so surprised to hear that he was a mainstream Republican who originally backed Jeb Bush and then moved on to Marco Rubio before finally voting for John Kasich in the Wisconsin primary.

When he asked for my views I started by saying that the first question one should ask is, Is this person qualified to be president? And, by any objective measurement, Trump is clearly unqualified for the office. (I even referenced Mitt Romney so they wouldn't think I was some sort of bomb-throwing radical.) After all, Trump has never served in either elective or appointive office, has no military experience and his business career is completely opaque so long as he won't release his tax returns. (Is Trump worth what he says he's worth? What does he pay in taxes? Does he pay anything? Does he give to charity? Does he -- as some have alleged -- have ties to organized crime? We'll never know.)

At that, the woman we were out with demanded, Is Hillary qualified to be president? Yes, I replied, she was a United States senator before she was secretary of state. (The level of Hillary hatred out there is truly astounding -- and irrational.) And then she went on the usual Fox News tirade about "Benghazi," Mrs. Clinton's private email server and even a new one I hadn't heard about the number of assistants Michelle Obama has. (How come my mother never mentioned that? You're slipping, Ma!)

I was on my best behavior (you can ask my wife!) and didn't argue with her at all.

(I desperately wanted to point out, however, that several Congressional committees led by Republicans have been investigating "Benghazi" for several years at a cost of millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours and not one thing -- zero! -- has been produced to implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing. Sigh.)

But the point is that Adams is right: people are fundamentally irrational. (Even me?) How could anyone think Donald Trump is qualified to be president? But, more disturbingly, Adams may be right when he says that Trump could win in a “landslide.”

As I concluded my own post on Friday:

For now, the math favors Mrs. Clinton. But that flamethrower of Mr. Trump's worries me.

And it's keeping me up at night.