January 18, 2026 by davefiskum

TRANSPORTATION TAX PROPOSAL GOES THROUGH PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY IN OREGON

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write. I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf. The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie. And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

To illustrate uncertainty, consider this rundown:

In the 2025 legislative session in Oregon, Democrats passed a transportation funding measure, including a gas tax increase, without any Republican support.

Then, Republicans, who contend they were left out of the process to produce the measure, said they would seek to refer the measure to the ballot.

Led by Republican State Senator Bruce Starr and Republican State Representative Ed Diehl, they succeeded quickly, even without a huge war chest to fund the signature collection effort – and such a war chest usually is necessary to qualify for the ballot.

Then, Governor Tina Kotek, who led the effort to pass the transportation funding measure in the first place, announced that she would ask the Legislature, during its short session in February, to repeal the measure.

Then, an old State Attorney General’s opinion – it dates to 1935 – was unveiled. It said, “no” — once a referendum qualifies for the ballot, public officials cannot pull it off.

And then, another wrinkle. Various experts said they weren’t sure the 1935 opinion was still valid.

There.

Understand?

Uncertainty.

Here’s how Senate Republicans described the issue:

“A 1935 Oregon Attorney General opinion confirms that once Oregonians

invoke their constitutional right to referendum, the Legislature has no authority to repeal the measure before voters have their say.

“That precedent directly contradicts Governor Tina Kotek’s recent call for lawmakers to repeal her signature transportation tax package after more than 250,000 Oregonians signed a petition demanding a vote.

“’This attorney general’s opinion makes the law unmistakably clear. Once the people invoke the referendum, the Legislature has no authority to repeal it out from under them,’ said Senate Republican Leader Bruce Starr (R-Dundee), one of the chief petitioners on the successful referendum. ‘The Constitution requires an election. There is no statutory workaround, no procedural loophole, and no legal basis to keep this measure off the

ballot.’”

A few facts will be interesting as this issue develops over the next couple weeks heading toward the legislative session next month. Not sure whether they will add clarity or confusion.

One question is whether such an old Attorney General’s Opinion still rules today. It is possible that current Attorney General Dan Rayfield, head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), will be asked for his opinion to bring things into 2026.

So far, according to reporting from Oregon Public Broadcasting, “the state’s lawyers can’t say for sure whether lawmakers have authority to repeal taxes when they’re already set for a vote.

“’Since 1935, the relevant portion of the constitution has been amended and there is additional case law bearing on the issue,’ DOJ spokeswoman Jenny Hansson said in a statement Thursday. ‘We have not analyzed whether the 1935 opinion’s conclusions remain valid in light of more recent legal developments.’”

Plus, there have been cases in the past where a measure was approved for the ballot but then got pulled back. Whether those past cases matter today is another unanswered question.

And still another question revolves around the general election next November where it is likely that Kotek, who is bidding for re-election, will go up against Republican State Senator Christine Drazan. They ran against each other last time around and Kotek won. Of course, both Drazan and Kotek must win primary elections first, but both will be heavily favored to do so.

There is little question but that Kotek would prefer not to have the gas tax on same ballot as her re-election. Many voters don’t like it and some of them also could decide to vote against Kotek.

So, can Kotek convince Democrats in the Legislature to repeal the measure, and if they do, will that matter?

It’s too soon to tell. We’ll know in a few weeks. But, as a lobbyist friend of mine used to say, “don’t hold your breath.”

January 16, 2026 by davefiskum

FIVE THINGS TO WATCH IN OREGON POLITICS IN 2026

Those who know me know that I am a bit of a political junkie.

So it was that I read with interest a story on the Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) website. It appeared under this headline: “Many of the biggest political stories from 2025 are not going away.”

Here is the introduction to the story:

“It was a turbulent year in Oregon politics.

“Portland drudged through its first year under a new government and mayor.

“President Donald Trump’s return to the White House brought major changes to the federal government, an immigration crackdown and widespread protests.

“Democrats held majority power in the state but struggled to make headway on some of Oregon’s top issues: Education, housing and transportation.”

OPB suggested that the same issues will percolate into 2026. So, it reported briefly on five political issues for 2026, as follows:

Oregon governor’s race: “Oregonians will pick their next governor in 2026.

“Governor Tina Kotek is running for another term. The former House speaker’s bid comes on the heels of a high-profile court fight over the Trump administration’s attempts to deploy the National Guard to Portland.

“At the same time, the state has reported high housing costs, dismal school rankings and rising unemployment under her leadership. Kotek is pitching herself as the right candidate to stand up to Trump, and contends Oregon is on the cusp of progress if they continue following her lead.”

Kotek could face a rematch with Republican state Senator Christine Drazan, who is also running. The former House Republican leader lost the 2022 election by less than 4 per cent.

Transportation Funding: “Oregon lawmakers tried for months to pass a bill to fund the state’s roads and prevent layoffs at state and local transportation agencies. Democrats eventually reached a deal, capping off a legislative process that featured extensive political dysfunction.

“But the issue isn’t going away in 2026.”

Kotek signed the bill in November. Since then, a Republican-led effort to refer the bill to voters has submitted enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. And, Kotek now says she will propose repeal of the measure when legislators return to the Capitol for the short session in February.

But the State Attorney General just said “no.” He ruled that it will not be possible to pull a transportation tax increase off the ballot because, once here, voters deserve to have their say.

Portland’s new government: “Portland’s city government went through a massive overhaul in 2025. With new council responsibilities, expanded district representation, more meetings, a new administrative branch, and different mayoral powers, there was a lot to figure out.

“Twelve months in, and some uncertainty remains. But much of the dust of those big changes has settled. Now, city leaders have a chance to truly explore the limits of the new governance structure.

Oregon’s budget quandary: “Oregon lawmakers passed a two-year state budget in June, only to see some of its underpinnings crumble weeks later.

“When President Trump signed his massive tax-cut-and-spending bill July 4, Oregon policymakers knew a spending reckoning was coming. Some of it will play out in the year ahead.

“Because of how the federal tax cuts interact with Oregon’s tax code, the bill is expected to reduce income flowing into the state general fund this budget cycle by $890 million — blowing a hole in the state budget.

Mid-term election: “Much of 2026 will build up to the November general election.

“The balance of power in Congress will be at stake as Trump’s term hits the halfway mark. Most of Oregon’s congressional delegation will be up for re-election, including U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley and all six members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has listed Representative Janelle Bynum as a potentially vulnerable candidate.

“In addition to the gubernatorial race, half of Oregon’s state senators and all of its state representatives will be up for re-election. Democrats are in the supermajority in both chambers, with 37-23 in the state house and 18-12 in the state senate.

“Republicans, always itching to cut into the Democrat margin, once again have Oregon’s richest person as an ally. Nike co-founder Phil Knight has donated $3 million to a committee that supports GOP legislative candidates.”

So, there you have it. In 2026, more of the same politics that occurred in 2025.

Thanks to OPB for this story. I am biased toward the organization for at least two reasons: First, it has increased its regional fundraising to offset public broadcasting cuts from the federal government under Trump; and, second, I and my firm represented OPB when I was a lobbyist and we were proud to do so.

It was a pleasure to represent an organization that practices very well the art of solid journalism.

January 14, 2026 by davefiskum

MAJOR COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS NOW A PAY-FOR-PLAY SPORT

Money talks.

Even, now, in college football at the major college level.

Amateur football used to exist in colleges across the country. Perhaps some athletes who played hoped to make it as a professional after college. Now, they no longer have to wait; they can earn money in college. Sometimes loads of money.

According to Mr. Google, “stories about money in college football revolve around massive player NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals, multi-million dollar coach salaries and buyouts, and the shift from unpaid amateurs to quasi-professionals, creating a high-stakes environment where top athletes transfer for bigger paychecks and boosters essentially ‘buy’ championship rosters, leading to debates about fairness, competitive balance, and the future of the sport.”

I question the future of the game of football that I used to love to watch at the college level. How far can money go?

Look now only to coaches’ salaries.

Kirby Smart, the head coach at Georgia, is, insofar as we know, the top wage earner with more than $13 million on an annual basis. He is followed closely by Ryan Day at Ohio State, and recent additions like Lane Kiffin, now with LSU after bolting from Mississippi State, and Curt Cignetti from Indiana. They get nearly as much as Smart — in the $10M-$11 million range annually.

At University of Oregon, near where I live, head coach Dan Lanning also earns around $11 million annually after a contract extension in early 2025.

Are these coaches worth the money? Specifically, for example, are they worth more than the college presidents where they are employed?

I say “no,” but there are others who “yes.” answers. One is retired Nike CEO Phil Knight. Every year, he plunks down big bucks to finance the pro game at the U of O, his alma mater. [to be fair, Knight also has invested in the academic side of the school.]

On the player side, there was an interesting case a week dealing with Demond Williams, a University of Washington (U of W) quarterback who signed a contract to stay at Washington, then a couple days later backed out of that agreement to say he would be leaving school for a bigger paycheck elsewhere.

The U of W said “no” and threatened to sue Williams, so he backed off and said he would remain in school.

Here is how the Seattle Times described the background of the Williams case:

“After many long decades of playing for free, college athletes have been granted the power to monetize their days on campus. They are now doing what any professional athlete with bankable skills does – look for a team that will pay more money and offer a better chance to win a championship. Antique ideas like loyalty to fans or commitments to teammates outdated…”

For my part, there is far too much money at the major college level in football. It tarnishes what we knew of the game – or at least what I thought I knew.

At the U of O, for instance, the team this year made it to the semi-finals of the college football playoff system. But not before several major players had already opted out for what’s called the “playoff portal.” So far, the total is about 25 departures and going higher.

For me, this makes it hard to root hard for a school when you are doing so an annual basis.

Som instead, I’ll continue to do two things: First, I’ll watch small college football where athletes are also real students, and, second, I’ll tune in to professional football at the highest level, the NFL, not college.

January 12, 2026 by davefiskum

SEVEN OF THE WEIRDEST RULES IN GOLF FROM A MAGAZINE, BUT ONE IS MISSING

One of my on-line golf magazines came up with a story this week under the headline I used for this blog: “Seven of the weirdest rules in golf.”

Well, for me, the magazine forgot the rule that should be leader of the pack – Rule #12 in the official rules of golf promulgated by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and Royal and Ancient (R and A) organization in Europe.

Before listing the seven weirdos from the magazine, let me focus on Rule #12.

It deals with bunkers and, incredibly, allows this in the sand:

Digging in with your feet to take a stance for a practice swing or the stroke.
Smoothing the bunker to care for the course.
Placing your clubs, equipment or other objects in the bunker (whether by throwing or setting them down).
Measuring, marking, lifting, replacing or taking other actions under a Rule.
Leaning on a club to rest, stay balanced or prevent a fall.
Striking the sand in frustration or anger.

Yeah, you read that right!

It is acceptable to “strike the sand in frustration or anger.”

Beyond that piece of stupidity, it used to be that golfers had to be careful in the sand to avoid testing it before hitting a shot. Under golf Rule #12, no longer.

When I volunteer at Oregon Golf Association events in my home state, if a rules official saw a player “strike the same in frustration or anger,” he or she would get a “code of conduct” penalty.

For my part, I cannot understand how the powerful writers at the USGA and R and A would allow Rule #12 to make it into the official rules book.

Now, on to the other seven weird golf rules, with credit to GolfWeek for this information:

1. Don’t Lose Your Head

Under the Rules of Golf, whether a stroke counts occasionally has less to do with what happened and more to do with what you intended to do. If you start a swing intending to strike the ball and the clubhead snaps off during the downswing, tough luck. The stroke still counts, even if you finish the motion holding nothing but the shaft.

There is, however, a narrow escape clause. If the clubhead goes rogue during the backswing and you manage to stop before the downswing begins, no stroke has occurred. No motion toward the ball, no penalty. A small mercy from the “golf gods” indeed.

2. Spit Happens (But Not Here)

Long before launch monitors and slow-motion replays, hustlers like the legendary Titanic Thompson discovered that a little lubrication on the clubface could dramatically change how the ball behaved.

Today, the Rules of Golf are far less forgiving. You’re not allowed to apply any substance to your clubface if it could influence the ball flight, including sunscreen, lip balm, Vaseline, and yes, spit.

Naturally occurring moisture like rain, morning dew, tears from a triple-bogey—all fine. But deliberate dampening? That’s cheating, plain and simple.

3. A Birdie of a Different Kind

At the 1998 Players Championship, Brad Fabel hit his tee shot safely onto the 17th-hole island green at TPC Sawgrass. A victory, if only briefly. Moments later, a seagull flew off with his golf ball and dunked it in the water.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. Unprecedented? Not even close. The Rules of Golf are well prepared for avian crime. When an animal moves your ball, it’s considered outside interference. So, there’s no penalty. You simply replace the ball where you reasonably believe it was before your feathered adversary decided to get involved.

4. Moving Targets

There are moments on the golf course that make you think, “Surely that’s never happened to anyone.” The Rules of Golf would politely disagree. Take, for example, your ball landing on a moving golf cart.

If this happens, the procedure is mercifully straightforward. First, yell “Fore!” (hopefully you did). Then determine the spot directly beneath where the ball came to rest (or would have) and drop within one club length, no closer to the hole.

No penalty strokes apply.

5. High Stakes

As we know, golf courses use colored stakes to define different areas of play. But they don’t all follow the same rules.

White stakes mark out of bounds. And because they define the edge of the course itself, they are considered boundary objects. They are immovable and must not be repositioned, even if they interfere with your swing.

Red and yellow stakes, on the other hand, mark penalty areas. These are treated more flexibly. If they interfere with your stance, swing, or the process of taking relief, you’re allowed to move them, provided you don’t improve your lie or conditions affecting the stroke.

6. Golf Rocks

The Rules of Golf include a category known as “loose impediments”—natural objects that aren’t fixed or growing, such as twigs, leaves, or stones. A player is allowed to remove loose impediments anywhere on the course, even in a penalty area, as long as the ball doesn’t move in the process.

7. A Prickly Situation

Golfers in desert regions occasionally find their balls nestled against, or lodged inside, a cactus. At that moment, confidence fades, hands go to hips, and one question matters more than all others: “ Do I actually have to hit this?”

Under the standard Rules of Golf, a cactus is just part of the course. Which means, strictly speaking, you are expected to play the ball as it lies.

However, many courses adopt a Local Rule that treats cacti, and other dangerous plants, as immovable obstructions or no-play zones, granting free relief. If no Local Rule exists, you still have options. You can declare the ball unplayable, take a one-stroke penalty, and drop at a safer spot.

Okay, on to my conclusion after the GolfWeek list.

The Rules of Golf can be described as too complicated for general understanding. That’s accurate. Rule writers should have had a crash course in how to write clearly. Even so, all of us in golf should try to know the rules and play on –

January 11, 2026 by davefiskum

PRINCIPLES FOR GIVING TO THE POOR AND DOWNTRODDEN

When the Bible talks about our responsibility as Christians to care for the poor and downtrodden, it does so with this important principle: Don’t do what you do with an eye for getting credit for it.

Allow the credit to go to God.

Especially on this Sunday, before my wife and I head off to church here in the California desert, it is appropriate to describe giving principles from Scripture.

This principle is outlined in Matthew, chapter 6, as follows:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So, when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

Great advice. And, of course, it is contained in the Scripture, so there is no reason to argue with it.

The chapter in Matthew goes on to contain one of the most well-known passages in Scripture, the “Lord’s Prayer.”

Here are the words, which are extremely valuable:

^“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

“This, then, is how you should pray:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

“Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

“And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

So, I say follow the prescriptions laid out in Scripture, then live a “good” live here on earth motivated by God’s grace, not your own performance, and then anticipate an eternity with God in heaven.

January 10, 2026 by davefiskum

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOOTBALL IS NOW HISTORY FOR ANOTHER YEAR

Pummeled.

Beat down.

Huge loss.

Those words may describe how University of Oregon football fans still are trying to come to grips with the Ducks loss last night.

It was a college football semi-final game and the Indiana Hoosiers drubbed the Ducks by a 56 to 22 score.

So much for the Ducks this year.

U of O Coach Dan Lanning was insightful in his comments after the game by saying two things: First, he gave huge credit to Indiana, and, second, he his team should be evaluated on the basis of its full season, not just losing the last game.

Here’s hoping Lanning stays around Eugene, Oregon for years.

As for the Hoosiers coach, Curt Cignetti, he’ll now lead Indiana against the Miami Hurricanes in the national championship game January 19.

Cignetti, who, to me, always appears sullen on the sideline, had the following to say after Indiana won, under this headline from Yahoo Sports: “’I am happy — at times,’ but Cignetti is all business on the Hoosiers’ sideline.

“If the broadcast cameras focused solely on Cignetti during the Rose Bowl, viewers may have thought the No. 1-ranked Hoosiers lost to No. 9 Alabama in a blowout. Instead, the inverse was true. Indiana obliterated the Crimson Tide, 38-3, leaving no doubt that it would advance to the College Football Playoff semi-final as the favorite to win its first national championship. Yet, Cignetti did not crack a smile until after the game was over.

“Screenshots of Cignetti’s facial expressions circulated across the Internet throughout the Rose Bowl. From his expressionless gaze to his looks of displeasure, the second-year Hoosiers coach never appeared satisfied with his team’s performance in a game that was never in doubt. And that’s exactly what he wanted.

“Cignetti’s demeanor during the CFP quarterfinal rout was no one-off occurrence. It was not some gimmick, either. Anyone who keeps a close eye on him during games — whether it be a playoff battle or a regular-season matchup with an FCS opponent — will see the same scowl.”

Well, even before the commentators, I also noticed Cignetti’s scowl on TV before it became a national topic.

Why does he scowl?

Football is still a sport, so why doesn’t he ever have fun and show it on his face?

I wish for the fun if only because Lanning appears to have fun on the sideline – dedicated to trying to win, but also appearing to enjoy the moment.

So, I say try to win, but have fun doing so in what still is a sport. Always scowling is bad form for a coach – read, Cignetti — even if he wins.

January 9, 2026 by davefiskum

WHY I WRITE MY BLOG

I have thought a bit about this blog headline since I started writing “Perspective from the 19^th Hole” a few years ago.

So far, I have written hundreds of them, though I took a pause late last year, but have started writing again.

On this Friday morning, as I relax a bit before heading out to the golf course, I reflect on this question: Why do I write my blog?

There is no one word or one phrase answer, but I suggest this…

First, I like to write, given my professional background, so it is purposeful for me to keep doing what I like to do.

Second, I have not much else to do in retirement, so I keep writing.

Third, commenting on golf, politics and other subjects, means I need to stay connected, at least to a degree, as I keep looking for new topics and researching those subjects (where, I add, I often rely on Mr. Google, not to mention several of past state lobbying colleagues).

Fourth, in retirement, I am no longer involved in dealing directly with public policy issues, so the best I can do is write about them – which suits me just fine. And, to put a point on it, if I cannot criticize the worst president in history face-to-face — Donald Trump — then I want to write about that buffoon who, as the epitome of an egotist, thinks only of himself, and not America.

Fifth, it is a bit of release to write what I think rather than keeping it inside.

Sixth, writing what I think to be accurate is a good antidote to all of those who use social media for their own ends, usually with honesty and accuracy a lost art.

In the years of my blog, I have not worked to cultivate a readership. My blog is available on-line, but that’s as far as it goes – and that works for me.

So, I tell myself, with these limited ends in mind, write on.

January 8, 2026 by davefiskum

PROPOSED GAS TAX INCREASE FOR OREGONIANS GOES ON HOLD AMIDST POLITICAL TENSION

Following the route of a proposed gas tax increase for Oregonians is difficult.

One day it’s on.
Another day it’s off because opponents gather enough signatures to get it to the ballot late this year.
Another day it may be off, too, because Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, heading for a re-election vote next November, says she wants to pull the measure off the ballot, thus avoiding a vote on it at the same time as she is on the ballot.

Who knows what’s next?

I wrote a day or so ago that Kotek and her Democrat allies at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, might be in favor of repealing a gas tax (with other transportation funding measures) before it makes it to the ballot next November.

Well, yesterday, Kotek made it official.

Here is the way the Oregonian newspaper reported the development under this headline: “Governor Tina Kotek calls for repeal of controversial transportation package she championed.”

“Governor Tina Kotek asked lawmakers Wednesday to repeal the controversial transportation funding package they passed along party lines with her support last fall. At the same time, she called on legislators to take ‘emergency action’ to prevent layoffs at the state transportation agency.

“Her announcement, which she made at the Oregon Transportation Forum’s annual meeting, comes weeks after a Republican-led group challenging the tax hikes in the package submitted enough signatures to delay the scheduled increase until voters could decide on the matter in November.

“The announcement means Oregonians might no longer get to vote on a 6-cent increase to the state’s 40 cents per gallon gas tax or hikes to title and registration fees in November. It also means voters may not get to decide whether to temporarily double the state’s 0.1% payroll tax for transit.”

The words “might” and “may” above refer to the fact that legislators have not yet acted on repeal, though Kotek’s plea for repeal could be successful, given that her party, the Democrats, control both the House and the Senate.

From a political perspective, repeal makes sense if you are Kotek.

“Some Salem insiders had been speculating that Kotek would repeal the package and its unpopular tax hikes because they were set to appear on the same ballot as her re-election bid this fall. A poll commissioned by the anti-tax campaign showed that the tax hikes were extremely unpopular among voters and likely to get nixed.”

Thus, it would be possible some voters would vote “no” on the tax and withhold their votes from Kotek, as well.

Beyond politics, the status leaves transportation funding – read, roads and bridges – in Oregon in a mess.

The Oregon Department of Transportation is facing a $242 million budget shortfall and that could result in laying off hundreds of employees – employees whose jobs involve repairing and re-building Oregon roads and bridges.

The Oregonian goes on to say that “decisions we make in the coming weeks will determine whether Oregon’s transportation system continues to decline or whether we can restore certainty in needed essential services that Oregonians rely on.”

Kotek now says she will lead an effort to finalize a more comprehensive transportation funding package for lawmakers to take up in the 2027 legislative session – after she stands for re-election at the polls.

So, if you are keeping track, the process calls for:

A short legislative session in February 2026, could involve the Kotek gas tax repeal effort, as well as other budget issues.
A primary election in the spring will indicate whether State Senator Christine Drazan, who ran and lost to Kotek last time around, will win the right to run again on the Republican side.
In election next November Kotek will contend for re-election, most likely against Drazan.
The next long legislative session begins in 2027 and transportation funding or the lack thereof will be a major issue again.

Then, after I wrote what appeared above, Drazan, Kotek’s likely Republican opponent, issued this statement:

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered, but Tina has proven that she can’t be trusted and that the only thing she cares about is raising more taxes. If Tina is afraid of Oregonians voting on her gas tax this November, she’s not going to like what they have to say about her leadership. What a flop.”

For her part, Kotek says she has set stage both for economic growth in Oregon.

So, as we watch and wait, we are in, not just for questions on transportation funding in general, but also for political fighting between the two likely candidates to be Oregon’s next governor – Kotek and Drazan.

January 7, 2026 by davefiskum

ATLANTIC EDITOR REFLECTS ON JANUARY 6, 2021: A SAD DAY IN AMERICAN HISTORY

It was a sad day in American history. January 6, yesterday.

One of the saddest.

A president of this country couldn’t stand to lose an election. But he did.

Who?

Donald Trump.

When he knew he couldn’t succeed in the normal way – by winning at the ballot box – he dispatched a horde of allies to wreak havoc on the federal Capitol.

Not only would he not call them off, he egged them on. So much so that various Capitol guards were injured.

Here is the way Atlantic Magazine editor Jeff Goldberg, wrote about the tragedy in the most recent issue:

“Trump has dismantled America’s foreign-aid infrastructure and gutted a program, built by an earlier Republican president, that saved the lives of Africans infected with HIV; he has encouraged the United States military to commit war crimes; he has instituted radical cuts to U.S. science and medical funding and abetted a crusade against vaccines; he has appointed conspiracists, alcoholics, and idiots to key positions in his administration; he has destroyed the independence of the Justice Department; he has waged pitiless war on prosecutors, FBI agents, and others who previously investigated him, his family, and his friends; he has cast near-fatal doubt on America’s willingness to fulfill its treaty obligations to its democratic allies; he has applauded Vladimir Putin for his barbarism and castigated Ukraine for its unwillingness to commit suicide; he has led racist attacks on various groups of immigrants; he has employed unusually cruel tactics in pursuit of undocumented immigrants, most of whom have committed only one crime—illegally seeking refuge in a country that they believed represented the dream of a better life.

“Those are some of the actions Trump has taken.

“Here are a few of the things he has said since returning to office: He has referred to immigrants as “garbage”; he has called a female reporter “piggy” and other reporters “ugly,” “stupid,” “terrible,” and “nasty”; he has suggested that the murder of a Saudi journalist by his country’s government was justified; he has labeled a sitting governor “seriously retarded”; he has blamed the murder of Rob Reiner on the director’s anti-Trump politics; he has called the Democrats the party of “evil.”

Yet, Goldberg writes, “even when weighed against this stunning record of degeneracy, the pardoning by Trump of his cop-beating foot soldiers (those who fought on January 6) represents the lowest moment of this presidency so far, because it was an act not only of naked despotism but also of outlandish hypocrisy.

“By pardoning these criminals, he exposed a foundational lie of MAGA ideology: That it stands with the police and as a guarantor of law and order. The truth is the opposite.”

Now, we are stuck in America with three more years of Trump.

As Americans, it’s worth considering how much injustice and illegality we can stand under Trump.

I hope we survive.

	Shelley Lewelling on ANOTHER GREAT SUNDAY!
	literarywanderings on MATT GAETZ: JUST WHAT NO ONE…
	literarywanderings on THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES…
	Bentley Gilbert on BIDEN STRIKES APPROPRIATE ADMO…
	S.B. Lewelling on AN AWE-INSPIRING EXPERIENCE TH…

Perspective from the 19th Hole

Thoughts from a lobbyist who has represented clients in Oregon and Washington, D.C. for more than 40 years.