PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The two all-but-assured candidates for President — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – represent, for me, a choice between evils.

I intend to avoid each.

On one side is the bombastic Trump that one Wall Street Journal writer said the other day “is entirely without qualifications to be President.” On the other side is Clinton who has displayed an incredible lack of ethics and honesty over her career, both inside and outside government.

So, here are five reasons in each case that describe why I will not be voting for either candidate.

ON TRUMP

1. He has insulted all persons with disabilities.

2. He has treated women with disrespect, believing them to be mostly objects in the worst sense of that term.

3. He has posted a checkered business career marked by bankruptcies which, though legal, have produced profit for him and losses for those he worked with – plus, he has a record of not paying bills he owes.

4. He exhibits a disdain for public policy considerations, believing that bluster will carry him to victory.

5. And, as an impulsive buffoon, he will have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

To me, Trump, with his standard line, “Make America Great Again,” reminds of the way Hitler rallied Germans after World War I and committed, while in power, unimaginable atrocities. Who knows what Trump be capable of if he wins?

ON CLINTON

1. She has used her public office, especially as Secretary of State, for private gain. Look no farther than the abysmal record of the Clinton Foundation, which made money for the Clintons without doing much, if anything, for anyone else, even though a foundation is supposed to benefit someone other than the fundraisers.

2. She has risked national security by using, contrary to policy and law, a private e-mail system to avoid public review.

3. She has adopted the so-called “progressive left” agenda, which calls for more government as the solution to any problem, thus continuing the entitlement spirit over the entrepreneurial spirit. [It might be accurate to note that Trump often endorses the far right movement, so we have candidates of two extremes.]

4. She has lied about and stonewalled inspections of her record over the years, apparently believing that both traits would win out over accountability.

5. She has demonstrated no inclination to put America’s interests first as the country confronts international terrorism.

In all, her record indicates that, if she wins, it would be, simply, Obama-3.

From my soapbox, I think this country needs another candidate who will assert his or her perspective, but if that cannot carry the day, will be open to compromise, not a bad word in politics.

Finding middle ground is the essence of democracy where pressing public policy problems are solved somewhere in the smart middle anyway.

Only one example is necessary to make the point: ObamaCare. What the Administration says is its top domestic achievement in office for eight years is a “new health care system” that doesn’t work any better than what came before it. One reason is that only Democrats voted for it; not one Republican was there to help develop a better middle ground solution to one of this nation’s most vexing challenges – better and more affordable health care.

What we need: Public officials committed to finding the smart middle ground, which means neither of the two current candidates. And if that means I throw away my vote, that is the only ethical choice I have.