What Did Lyndon Johnson Really Think of Me?

Sherwin Markman • August 31, 2021

Lyndon Johnson’s sense of himself and his staff was never easy to unravel. At times, for me, it amounted to a roller coaster of interactions that to this day I have difficulty sorting through. Here are some reasons why:

In the fall of 1966, Wayne Hayes was one of the most powerful members of the House of Representatives. He was also well known as a mean-tempered bully. Nonetheless, he was an extraordinarily important ally for LBJ in the enactment of his legislative program, and in that milieu I became entangled with him.

Then a presidential assistant, I was in Paris where I had been invited to a cocktail party at the residence of the American ambassador. I found myself standing on the fringe of a group of Frenchmen being regaled by a very drunk Congressman Hayes. I listened, aghast, as he loudly excoriated Lyndon Johnson, slurring such slanders as, “If you knew him as I do, you would know he can’t be trusted.”  And, “he is a rotten president! Don’t any of you ever forget that!”

I could not remain silent. Without thinking, I stepped forward and confronted Hayes, stating that, considering his position, he should not be saying things like that, especially in Paris in front of foreign dignitaries. Flushed with anger, Hayes demanded to know who I was, and I told him. “You and your boss can just go to hell,” he barked, and strode away.

The whole incident was upsetting, but I was totally surprised by what happened next. Back in my hotel room, I was sound asleep when I was startled awake by the telephone. It was Wayne Hayes, and, without preliminary, and still sounding drunk, he began shouting, “You are going to be fired, you son of a bitch. As soon as I get home, I’m calling Lyndon and that will be the end of you.” With that, he hung up, and I went back to sleep.

But that wasn’t the end of it. The moment I walked back into the White House, the president summoned me to the Oval Office.

“What the hell did you do to Wayne Hayes?” he asked, and I told him, thinking he’d be pleased that I had defended him. He was not.  “We need his help,” Johnson stated, “and you will do whatever it takes to make it right with him. Of course, I’m not going to fire you. Nobody up there can make me to do that. But you are going up to his office right now, and you are going to apologize to him. More than that, you are going to make him believe that you mean every word you say.”
 
And that’s what I did. When I walked into Hayes’s office, he was scowling at me from behind his desk. “I suppose you are here to beg to get your job back,” he growled. “No, sir,” I answered in the softest voice I could muster. “I came here to tell you how wrong I was in Paris. I should never have said those things. I mean that from the bottom of my heart,” I added.

It was like magic. Hayes’ face broke into a broad smile. “Sit down, sit down,” he urged. From that moment and for the next hour, he regaled me with personal anecdotes as if I were his new best friend, including telling me how much he admired Lyndon Johnson.

Throughout, I continued to grin and nod my agreement. But when I reported all this to a pleased LBJ, I was still feeling sick about what I had just done. Still, I felt no joy when, 10 years later, Hayes became embroiled in a very public sex scandal that drove him from public office.


In November 1967, I discovered that the best and the worst of my relationship with the president could occur within one 24-hour period. 

The war in Vietnam was going badly. Johnson could not appear in public anywhere but military bases without enduring demonstrations against him. Robert McNamara, his Secretary of Defense, was having a breakdown because of the war, and wanted to quit. The president badly needed a weekend off, and he decided to do that in Colonial Williamsburg in nearby Virginia. He asked me to arrange it, which meant a place for him to stay, a round of golf with his son-in-law, Chuck Robb, and church on Sunday.

 

And so, along with a detail of Secret Service agents, I drove to Williamsburg a couple of days in advance. My first call was to Arkansas Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, whose family had largely financed the historic facility. A house for the Johnsons and a golf time were easily secured. I then asked Rockefeller if he would recommend a church for the president to attend, and he told me that the Williamsburg Episcopal Church headed by the Rev. Cotesworth Lewis would be perfect.

 

“Will there be a Vietnam problem with the reverend?” I specifically asked. “No way. He strongly supports the president,” Rockefeller answered.

 

To be absolutely certain — and accompanied by a Secret Service agent — I called upon Reverend Lewis, who reassured us concerning any Vietnam issue. He even handed us a copy of the sermon he would give, which was perfectly acceptable.

 

The evening prior to his going to that church, the president called me into the softly lighted study where he was sitting alone. He was in a reflective mood and he invited me to join him. Then, quietly, he began to talk, sharing with me some of his dreams for a better America and his despair with the never-ending war that seemed to be destroying everything. I did not say much, just stayed with him, soaking in the feeling that this was a very special moment.

 

The next morning, the president and his family went to church. Instead of joining them, I waited outside, standing behind the last car in the waiting presidential motorcade. Suddenly, the church doors burst open and a gaggle of media people rushed out, shouting, “You’ll never believe what just happened in there!”

 

Instinctively, I knew all too well, and my heart dropped. A few moments later, I learned that the reverend had lied to me. He had abandoned the text of the sermon and instead had spent the time lecturing the helplessly sitting president about the evils of the Vietnam War.

 

When the president walked out the church door, he turned his head, spotted me, and with a bend of his finger summoned me to join him. And so I walked to his limousine, wishing only that the earth would swallow me up.

 

Thus began the most miserable six days of my life. In Johnson’s eyes, the main person to blame was not the reverend, but me for permitting it to happen. Sitting in the limousine, the president of the United States lit into me with total fury. The fact that I had anticipated the danger and had done what I could meant nothing. Nor that the Secret Service agent was with me throughout. In Johnson’s eyes, I should have seen through the reverend’s falsity, to which I had no answer.

 

The president’s diatribe against me continued back at the house and, following that, after he returned from his golf game. Even then it did not end. He ordered me to fly back to the White House with him, and, throughout that helicopter trip and even at the mansion, my ordeal continued without letup. 

 

When I finally reached home, I saw that coverage of the church fiasco was all over the television networks, and the next morning it was splashed across the front pages of both the Washington Post and New York Times. It seemed that the reverend had achieved his 15 minutes of fame.

 

Right then, even though the president had not yet asked for it, I believed that I had no choice but to resign. When I returned to the White House, I immediately began to dictate that letter, but before I could finish, Marvin Watson, the president’s chief of staff, walked into my office. He saw what I was doing and told me to stop. “Don’t quit,” he said. “The president will calm down. Just wait him out.” At that moment, with all my heart I wanted to resign, but I listened to Marvin and didn’t.

 

I heard nothing more from the president that day, nor did I see or talk to him for the rest of the week. 

 

Then, on the following Saturday, I was invited to a formal White House dinner honoring another nation’s head of state. With great trepidation, I went. Arriving there, I took my place in the traditional receiving line, having no idea what would occur when I reached the president.

 

What happened was this: The president grabbed my arm and pulled me close. Then he said to the visiting head of state, “I want you to meet this young man who is one of the finest assistants anyone could ever have.”

 

So, in the end, what did the president think of me? Perhaps it is expressed in the words he wrote to me by hand in his black Sharpie pen in September 1968 when I left the White House to join my law firm:

 

“NO ONE IN W.H. WAS MORE DEDICATED TO COUNTRY OR MORE LOYAL TO IT. THANKS MUCH AGAIN.”

 

A long river of years has passed since President Johnson wrote those words. Yet, even today, I remain warmed by them. I had the great honor of serving in the White House. It was very much worthwhile.

 

 

Sherwin Markman, a graduate of the Yale Law School, lives with his wife, Kathryn (Peggy) in Rock Hall, Maryland. He served as an assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, after which was a trial lawyer in Washington, D.C. He has published several books, including one dealing with the Electoral College. He has also taught and lectured about the American political system.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Eastern Neck Board of Directors April 16, 2025
Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.
By Elaine McNeil April 9, 2025
The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.
By John Christie April 2, 2025
Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Bill Flook & CSES Staff April 2, 2025
Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!
By Jared Schablein April 2, 2025
After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.
No mandate. Image: CSES design.
By Jan Plotczyk November 19, 2024
 The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.
Show More