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 John Christie December 16, 2025
When I practiced law, much of my litigation involved issues arising under federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was my frequent adversary in court. In some cases, DOJ challenged a client’s conduct as anticompetitive. In others, they claimed an intended client merger would create a monopoly. Some of these DOJ court battles were won, others were not. Overall, I had great respect for DOJ lawyers. They were professional, well prepared, and dedicated to their mission of seeing justice done. They were courteous, honest, and forthright with the courts before which we argued our cases. In those days, without resorting to social media or press conferences, the DOJ spoke entirely through its court filings. Although as an advocate I took issue with various DOJ investigatory decisions as well as decisions to initiate litigation, I never thought politics was involved. Post-Watergate internal rules strictly limited communication with any figures at the White House. Not so, it seems, anymore. Beginning last January 20, all of this changed rapidly and spectacularly . On March 14, Trump triumphantly arrived at the main DOJ building in D.C. to be welcomed by a group of carefully selected VIPs. He was greeted by Pam Bondi, his chosen new attorney general, who exclaimed, “We are so proud to work at the directive (sic) of Donald Trump.” Bondi’s boast that the DOJ now worked at the president’s behest was something never said before and, in effect, surrendered the department’s long and proud independence. And Bondi’s comment was not an empty gesture. As chronicled by reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis in their new book, Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department , within hours of being sworn in, Trump and his lieutenants began punishing those at the Justice Department who had investigated him or those he considered his political enemies. Career attorneys with years of experience under many administrations were fired or reassigned to lesser work, or they resigned. As Leonnig and Davis report, what followed was “the wholesale overthrow of the Justice Department as Trump insert[ed] his dutiful former defense attorneys and 2020 election deniers atop the department.” [Source: Injustice , p. xix.] In the place of years of experience, the new team appears credentialed simply by loyalty to the president’s causes. The DOJ’s conduct in court has since caused damage to judicial and public faith in the integrity and competence of the department. Just Security is an independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal housed in the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. Since January 20, it has documented federal judicial concerns about DOJ conduct. In 26 cases, judges raised questions about DOJ non-compliance with judicial orders and in more than 60 cases, judges expressed distrust of government-provided information and representations. This count was taken the day after a federal court dismissed the DOJ cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. [Source: Just Security , “The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Nov. 20, 2025.] As summarized by the Georgetown Law Center’s Steve Vladeck, “It’s one thing for the Department of Justice to so transparently pursue a politically motivated prosecution. But this one has been beset from the get-go with errors that remotely competent law students wouldn’t make. Indeed, it seems a virtual certainty that the Keystone Kops-like behavior of the relevant government lawyers can be traced directly to the political pressure to bring this case; there’s a reason why no prosecutors with more experience, competence, or integrity were willing to take it on.” [Source: One First , Nov. 24, 2025.] Rather than accept criticism and instead of trying to do better, Bondi’s DOJ and the Trump administration lash out in a fashion apparently aimed at demeaning the federal judiciary. At a recent Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s former defense attorneys, attributed the Trump administration’s myriad losses in the lower federal courts to “rogue activist judges.” He added, “There’s a group of judges that are repeat players, and that’s obviously not by happenstance, that’s intentional, and it’s a war, man.” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller decries each adverse ruling against the Trump administration as just part of a broader “judicial insurrection.” Not to be left behind, Trump himself regularly complains of “radical left lunatic” judges. In addition to the harm these comments inflict on the federal courts, their premise is simply not true. According to a survey by Vladeck, as of Nov. 14, there were 204 cases in which federal district courts have ruled on requests for preliminary relief against the Trump administration. In 154 of them, district judges granted either a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both. Those 154 rulings came from 121 district judges appointed by seven presidents (including President Trump) in 29 district courts. In the 154 cases with rulings adverse to the Trump administration, 41 were presided over by 30 Republican-appointed judges, fully half of whom were appointed by President Trump. No, it is no longer your grandfather’s Department of Justice. 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 CSES Staff December 16, 2025
The Salisbury City Council has appointed longtime public servant Melissa D. Holland to fill the vacancy in District 2. Holland was selected on Dec. 1 after the council reviewed several applicants. A 27-year resident of Salisbury, Holland brings more than 20 years of experience in government, education, and administration. As executive assistant to the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, she currently oversees operations, budgeting, communications, and planning. Before joining UMCES, Holland worked for nearly 11 years with the Wicomico County Council, gaining extensive experience in legislative procedure, constituent services, research, and budget preparation. Her background includes positions with the Wicomico County Board of Education, the State of Maryland’s Holly Center, and multiple early-learning programs. Approved by a 3-1 council vote, Holland was selected based on her administrative expertise and long-standing community involvement. (Salisbury’s City Council is now comprised of only women.) She has a bachelor’s degree in legal studies from Post University and an associate degree from Wor-Wic Community College. She has also served as PTA president at East Salisbury Elementary and Wicomico Middle School. In her application, Holland emphasized her commitment to maintaining transparency in city government and ensuring that District 2 residents remain informed and represented. “I plan to be well-informed on the issues that matter to the citizens of Salisbury and to listen to their concerns carefully,” she wrote. “I want to make a positive and lasting impact on our city.” Holland’s appointment restores the City Council to full membership as it faces debates over budgeting, infrastructure planning, and local governance initiatives. She is expected to begin constituent outreach immediately and participate fully in the selection of the next council president.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
Voters in Hurlock have delivered sweeping changes in this year’s municipal election, as Republican and GOP-aligned candidates won key races there. The results mark a setback for Democrats and a significant political shift in a community that has historically leaned Democratic in state and federal contests. The outcome underscores how local organizing and turnout strategies can have an outsized impact in small-town elections. Analysts also suggest that long-term party engagement in municipal contests could shape voter alignment in future county and state races. Political analysts warn that ignoring municipal elections and ceding them to the GOP could hurt the Maryland Democratic Party in statewide politics. Turnout increased by approximately 17% compared with the 2021 municipal election, reflecting heightened local interest in the mayoral and council races. Incumbent Mayor Charles Cephas, a Democrat, was soundly defeated by At-Large Councilmember Earl Murphy, who won with roughly 230 votes to Cephas’s 144. In the At-Large Council race, Jeff Smith, an independent candidate backed by local Republicans, secured a 15-point win over Cheyenne Chase. In District 2, Councilmember Bonnie Franz, a Republican, was re-elected by 40 percentage points over challenger Zia Ashraf, who previously served on the Dorchester Democratic Central Committee. The only Democrat to retain a seat on the council was David Higgins, who was unopposed. The Maryland Republican Party invested resources and campaign attention in the Hurlock race, highlighting it on statewide social media and dispatching party officials, including Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, to campaign. Local Democrats emphasized support for Mayor Cephas through the Dorchester County Democratic Central Committee, but the Maryland Democratic Party did not appear to participate directly.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
In what political observers are calling a clear break from Maryland’s moderate Republican establishment, Wicomico County Executive Julie Giordano chose former Gov. Bob Ehrlich — not former Gov. Larry Hogan — as the guest of honor at her re-election fundraiser in late October. Billed as Giordano’s annual Harvest Party, her event drew conservative activists from across the lower Eastern Shore and featured Ehrlich as keynote speaker. This was immediately read by insiders as a signal that Giordano will embrace the party’s right-wing base ahead of 2026, distancing herself from Hogan’s more centrist, bipartisan image. “Bringing in Bob Ehrlich instead of Larry Hogan wasn’t accidental,” one longtime Republican strategist said. “It shows Giordano wants to plant her flag with the MAGA-aligned wing of the party, the same voters who now dominate Maryland’s Republican primary base.” Hogan, who has hinted at another run for governor, was notably absent from this year’s Tawes Crab and Clam Bake in Somerset County, a high-profile gathering long considered essential for statewide contenders. Coupled with Giordano’s public alignment with Ehrlich, Hogan’s absence has fueled speculation that his influence within Maryland’s GOP is slipping. Those doubts were amplified by new polling data. A statewide survey commissioned by the Baltimore Banner found Gov. Wes Moore (D) leading Hogan 45% to 37% in a hypothetical 2026 matchup, with 14% undecided. The poll, conducted by phone and web from Oct. 7–10 among more than 900 registered voters, carries a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. The results suggest that while Hogan remains popular among moderates and independents, Moore continues to hold a firm advantage statewide, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. Giordano’s decision to align herself with Ehrlich rather than Hogan further illustrates the ideological divide defining Maryland Republicans heading into 2026. As the party drifts further to the right, analysts say Hogan’s brand of pragmatic centrism may no longer have a natural home in today’s GOP. For now, Ehrlich’s appearance in Salisbury is being seen as a symbolic moment, one that cements Giordano’s status as a leading figure in the state’s Trump-aligned movement and underscores how quickly the political winds have shifted. For Hogan, once seen as the Republican best positioned to reclaim the governor’s office, that shift may mark the end of an era.
By Jan Plotczyk November 4, 2025
Can Maryland create a new congressional map that will flip the state’s sole Republican district to the Democrats? Gov. Wes Moore has created a Governor's Redistricting Advisory Commission to consider mid-cycle redistricting and Maryland has jumped into the redistricting fray. The commission will conduct public hearings, solicit public feedback, and present recommendations to the governor and Maryland General Assembly. “My commitment has been clear from day one — we will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” said Moore. “And we also need to make sure that, if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters’ voices can actually be heard .” Moore’s commission is one of those options — a response to Trump’s call to Republican-led states to create more GOP House districts before the 2026 midterm elections. Three GOP states — Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina — have completed a Trump gerrymander for a gain of seven seats and three more states — Indiana, Utah, and Ohio — could create new maps with a total of four additional Republican seats. That would make 11, should they withstand challenges. Democratic-led states made a lot of noise at first about countering these GOP efforts, but only California and Virginia have campaigns for new maps underway. California wants to flip five seats and Virginia hopes for up to four. Optimistically, that could add up to as many as nine. Maryland’s goal would be to add one Democratic seat. Other states on both sides could soon follow, in some cases taking advantage of existing redistricting deadlines or ongoing litigation. Maryland State Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Balto City) is not in favor of mid-cycle redistricting, calling it too dicey. “Simply put, it is too risky and jeopardizes Maryland’s ability to fight against the radical Trump administration. At a time where every seat in Congress matters, the potential for ceding yet another one to Republicans here in Maryland is simply too great,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to Senate Democrats. Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD01), whose district would be targeted by redistricting, called the effort "the most partisan thing you could do." He whined, “It just wouldn’t be fair.” Harris warned that any redistricting could backfire on the Democrats. “We will take this to court, it will go as high as necessary, and in the end, a judge could draw a map that actually has two or three Republican congressmen,” Harris said. “I’d caution the Democrats, be careful what you wish for.” Harris and his wife, Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, have perhaps already worked out a strategy. The Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission, last constituted by Gov. Martin O’Malley in 2011, will begin its work this month. The five-member commission includes: Chair: Senator Angela Alsobrooks Senate President Bill Ferguson or designee Speaker Adrienne A. Jones or designee Former Attorney General Brian Frosh Cumberland Mayor Ray Morriss “We have a president that treats our democracy with utter contempt. We have a Republican party that is trying to rig the rules in response to their terrible polling,” said Sen. Alsobrooks. “Let me be clear: Maryland deserves a fair map that represents the will of the people. That’s why I’m proud to chair this commission. Our democracy depends on all of us standing up in this moment.” Will Maryland’s First District finally be competitive? Can we at long last replace “AWOL Andy” Harris? Stay tuned…. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
In strong numbers, local residents turned out last month for a community information session on offshore wind hosted by the Alliance for Offshore Wind at the Ocean Pines library. The forum heard from industry experts, environmental advocates, and labor leaders to discuss how offshore wind projects can support jobs, clean energy, and coastal resilience along Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Featured were Sam Saluto of Oceantic, Jim Strong of the United Steelworkers, Ron Larsen of Sea Ink Solutions, and Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, all of whom emphasized the long-term environmental and economic benefits of wind development off Maryland’s coast. Speakers outlined how the project, once completed, is expected to create hundreds of high-paying jobs, generate clean power for tens of thousands of homes, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels that cause pollution and coastal erosion. “The potential here is extraordinary,” said Saluto, highlighting Oceantic’s ongoing work to ensure safety and sustainability standards remain at the highest level. “We’re not just talking about wind turbines. We’re talking about revitalizing local economies and protecting the Shore’s way of life.” Union representative Jim Strong echoed that sentiment, noting that Maryland’s labor community sees offshore wind as a chance to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity while giving workers access to strong wages and long-term stability. Environmental voices, including Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, focused on how properly sited wind projects can reduce carbon emissions while coexisting with marine wildlife and migratory bird patterns. While most of the evening centered on data and community questions, the event briefly turned tense when Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan, who is leading a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s offshore wind plans, attempted to question the panel. The mayor appeared to lose his train of thought mid-sentence and later cast doubt on the reality of climate change, drawing visible concern from several attendees. Meehan, a New Yorker who moved to Ocean City in 1971 and has held public office since 1985, has become one of the region’s most vocal opponents of offshore wind. His critics argue the lawsuit represents an effort to stall progress rather than engage with the facts presented by energy, labor, and environmental experts. Despite the brief exchange, the overall tone of the evening was forward-looking. Residents lingered after the formal discussion to review informational materials, speak with industry representatives, and learn about opportunities for community involvement. For many, the message was clear: Maryland’s transition to clean energy is not only feasible, it’s already underway, and the Eastern Shore stands to benefit.
Show More