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.

One important reality has struck me as all of us, as voters, are enduring one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in history.

It is this: We are living in what Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts calls “a post-factual society.”

Facts don’t seem to matter. It is, rather, what you happen to believe and, if a falsehood is uttered repeatedly, it becomes a new fact.

The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson put it more directly in the aftermath of the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He said Trump “inhabits his own factual universe.”

More from Gerson:

“It is not surprising that Trump inhabits his own factual universe, in which truth is determined by usefulness and lies become credible through repetition. What made the first presidential debate extraordinary — really, unprecedented — was not the charges that Trump denied, but the ones he confirmed.

“When Hillary Clinton claimed he didn’t pay any federal income taxes in a couple of years, Trump said: “That makes me smart.” When Clinton accused Trump of defrauding a contractor out of money he was owed, Trump responded: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.” When Clinton criticized Trump for casual misogyny and for calling women “pigs,” Trump brought up Rosie O’Donnell and said, “She deserves it.” When Clinton recalled a Justice Department lawsuit against Trump alleging housing discrimination, he dismissed it as “just one of those things.”

“When Clinton attacked Trump for coddling the Russians, Trump attempted to excuse them of hacking, shifting the blame toward obese computer geeks. When Clinton accused Trump of betraying U.S. allies, Trump answered: “We defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us. . . . We cannot protect countries all over the world, where they’re not paying us what we need.” Rather than affirming the importance of NATO, or reassuring our Pacific partners — the easy and expected answer — Trump reduced the United States’ global role to a protection racket, run by a seedy executive who admits to cheating contractors when he is “unsatisfied with [their] work.”

“During the debate, the points scored against Trump were damaging. But the points he ceded would disqualify any normal politician, in any normal presidential year.”

In this strange political year, one more trend seems to be clear. It is that many voters assess the environment differently than political commentators or the so-called “political elite” (which, I guess, includes me, given my long career as a lobbyist).

When it comes to Trump, seeing him in a positive light is incredible given what he has said about women, about minorities, about the disabled, about the parents of a slain U.S. solder. He is so self-absorbed as to be comical. Nearly everyone response to every question resolves around “I did this” or “I did that.” Nary a word about those who be affected by his buffoonery.

I cannot him with his finger on the nuclear trigger. As the Arizona Republic wrote the other day in its first endorsement of a Democrat in 126 years, “the president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.”

Normally, such over-the-top statements as Trump has made would disqualify someone from running for president.

But facts don’t matter. Trump supporters don’t seem to care about what he has said and done, or appear to believe that facts about his lack of character have been planted by the anti-Trump media elites.

But, if facts matter – and they do – the choice is between two evils. If I have to make it, my choice will be Clinton, more a vote of resignation than enthusiasm…and one based on facts.

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.

Well, who won the first Presidential debate?

The answer, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you were in favor of Donald Trump before the debate, you are probably still in his corner.

If you were for Hillary Clinton before the debate, you are probably still there.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Joseph Rago emphasized this week, voters tend to come away with different impressions from such a debate as this than do political professionals – or even, like me, retired political operatives…read lobbyists.

Moreover, I think most debates are terrible ways for voters to gather or make impressions on candidates. Many people watch for the pithy quote or the smart rejoinder. Others watch for the gaffe. Call them “zingers. Hill.com joined the fray this morning by emphasizing what it called the five best zingers, but frankly, none of them will rank with past memorable lines.

Neither the quote or the gaffe tell us much about what we, as voters, need to know about how a candidate would handle the demands of the nation’s highest political office, one that matters to the entire “free world,” as well as the “unfree world” (if that is a phrase).

Debates don’t have much to do with the serious business of governing.

As a voter, I’d rather than take my time to assess a candidate’s overall credentials instead of relying on 90 minutes of made-for-TV hype.

For me, the debate allowed Clinton to reinforce her theme that she is qualified to be president and has the experience for the job. Experience, she would say, matters in a position where “on-the-job” training could be a disaster.

On the other hand, Trump managed, through awkward and bolloxed-up language, to reiterate that he is the choice for change. Put another way, if you want four more years of the Obama Administration, vote for Clinton.

Back to my main point. I think neither candidate moved the needle much in their direction. So, besides all the other information available to us as voters, there will be two more presidential debates, plus one for the vice presidents, before the time comes to cast a ballot in this “choice between evils” election.

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.

Political commentator Elizabeth Drew asked and answered that question in a piece that ran in the Washington Post over the weekend. Here is a summary of her view:

“The debates test qualities that have virtually nothing to do with governing. Governing requires thoughtfulness, study, depth, patience, the ability to draw the most useful information out of advisers and arrive at the wisest policy.

I agree with her.

Here is a further excerpt of what she wrote as we sit on the cusp of a presidential debate Monday that may set viewership records, even if, as Drew contends, it contributes almost nothing to the process of governing.

“Consider the qualities that enabled John F. Kennedy to prevent the discovery that the Soviets had stationed nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba from escalating into a calamity. During that tense showdown, Kennedy most definitely didn’t utilize his considerable wit and zealously avoided publicly humiliating Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

“Yet employing wit and one-upping an opponent are the two qualities most prized in the debates.

“Worst of all, the supposedly most important thing that happens in a debate is a candidate delivering an effective one-liner. Now, we all know, or should know, that the one-liner has most likely been proposed by the candidate’s advisers and that it has been rehearsed. It has all the spontaneity of a can of tuna. And it has nothing to do with governing.

“It’s nice if a president is clever, but that’s not required. Yet the night usually goes to the deliverer of the best one-liner. It’s what is most anticipated and most remembered.

“Actually, the first televised presidential debates, between Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were nearly devoid of one-liners. Now they’re the be-all and end-all of the encounter. What a weird way to decide who should be president.

“Probably the most famous one-liner in modern debates was challenger Ronald Reagan’s saying to President Jimmy Carter in 1980, “There you go again.” Carter was raising a real issue: Reagan’s opposition to Medicare and Social Security when he was governor of California.

“No matter — that one sentence blew any discussion of those issues away. Reagan also scored the runner-up: his attempt, on seeking reelection in 1984, to dispatch questions about his mental acuity after one of his responses during the previous debate wandered down the Pacific highway. Reagan dealt with this potential block to a second term by saying of his nearly two-decade-younger challenger, former vice president Walter Mondale, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

The line I remember also was one of the best. Uttered by then Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, it skewered his opponent, Dan Quayle, with a line that said: “I knew Jack Kennedy and you are no Jack Kennedy.”

But, to follow up on Drew’s piece, that is the very problem with debates as measures of someone’s ability to serve in the nation’s highest political office. It’s a horse-race mentality, one that doesn’t contribute much to a perspective about which candidate actually deserves to win on the merits of his or her ability to perform.

Here’s the way Bryan Garsten, professor of political science and the humanities at Yale University, put in a piece for the Wall Street Journal:

“Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, ‘Vote for me’? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.

“The American Presidency is too great an office to be subjected to the indignity of this technique. Though the televised debates returned and eventually became a regular part of the campaign, it is hard to think of even one that stands out as a model of informed and informative discourse.”

Garsten and Drew make very good points. My response will be to listen or watch the coming debates, but work hard to avoid what is natural – focusing only on the smart line or unintended gaffe.

I’ll work to find the kind of substance that can contribute to a reasoned vote come November.

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.

There I was a few days ago sitting with my wife in the middle of the Garonne River in Bordeaux, France listening to an excellent singer helping all of us celebrate a great evening under the stars.

He sang two Simon & Garfunkel tunes, including these words:

• From The Boxer: “I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises. All lies and jests. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

• From Mrs. Robinson: “…going to the candidates’ debate. Laugh about it. Shout about it. When you’ve got to choose, every way you look at it you lose.”

And what did these words convey?

Not necessarily what they were meant to convey when they were written many years ago.

For me, they jerked me back to the mind-numbing reality of the U.S. presidential campaign as the two candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – prepare for the first presidential debate, which promises to draw the largest television audience in history.

One reason is that both candidates exemplify the words from the Mrs. Robinson tune – “when you’ve got to choose, every way you look at it you lose.”

There have not been two presidential candidates in history who engender so much opposition and distrust.

On one hand sits Trump who doesn’t even have the basic qualifications to serve in the nation’s highest office, yet that very fact may be what prompts some citizens to say they will vote for him. As the song says, illustrating the apparent views of many voters “still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

On the other hand, you have Clinton who inspires almost nothing but distrust, given her checkered record over more than 25 years in the public arena, including her stint as Secretary of State when she allegedly practiced a “pay to play” approach to her job. Meeting with her appeared to require a lot of money for the Clinton Foundation, which mostly feathered her own nest.

So, while in France for about 10 days, I was not able to escape reminders of a presidential race worth forgetting, even while listening to the good words of Simon & Garfunkel.

Therefore, as a voter, I am preparing to lose.

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.

One of the worst ways to set tax policy in Oregon is to let biased individuals propose it from their kitchen table or from the backrooms of advocates’ offices out of the glare of public scrutiny.

But that’s what is happening in Oregon these days as public employee unions propose a huge tax increase and are prepared to spend $15 million to pass it.

It will be decided at the ballot box in November, not where it should be hashed out in the push and pull of the legislative process in Salem.

What’s on the ballot is called Measure 97. It would impose a 2.5% tax on sales of goods and services in Oregon. It’s a tax on sales – not profits – and it would be passed on to Oregon consumers and small businesses through higher prices on everything from food, gas and electricity to insurance, medicine and health care.

In other words, what public employee unions want is for someone else to pay the tax, which illustrates the age-old prescription for good tax policy – someone else pays it.

This is one of the worst tax grabs in memory.

Consider this quote from a recent opinion piece in The Oregonian written by two owners of local Oregon business Umpqua Dairy:

“We can all agree that Oregon’s budget is in bad shape. It is clear that we need the legislative and executive branches of our government to come together with ideas that will work for all Oregonians. But we can’t fix it with a poorly designed law enacted through the ballot box.

“This is a problem that requires thoughtful solutions. Measure 97 will destroy many Oregon-based companies and hurt hardworking families. Studies estimate a loss of over 38,000 private sector jobs — almost twice the number of people in Roseburg!  Prices for goods and services will increase dramatically throughout Oregon.

“Please don’t believe that this is just a tax on big out-of-state corporations. It is not. The corporations that will be hurt the most are those that call Oregon their home.”

Kudos to the Umpqua owners for going public with their position.

Further, it might sound strange for me to endorse the public policy-making process in the Legislature. The easiest thing to do is to be cynical about a process that sometimes, to use an old example, resembles making sausage.

But, as someone who has been involved in that process for more than 40 years, 25 of them as a private sector lobbyist, I am more than willing to endorse the process.

When it comes to forming tax policy, there is no substitute for the interplay of the legislative process, which carries these virtues:

• Developing public policy, especially on such a controversial area as tax policy, occurs in the sunlight. That is, all meetings of committees such as the House or Senate Revenue Committees, are public and advertised as being so; interested parties, as well as members of the general public, are allowed to observe and/or participate in the process.

• Both sides – Democrats and Republicans – are part of the process. One party may be in charge, but the minority party is recognized.

• All actions are conducted by a public vote. In other words, legislators, either in committees or on the House or Senate floors, must register their votes for all to see.

• Finally, the draft of a piece of legislation, one that sets tax policy, is written by attorneys for the Legislative Counsel Office. Thus, the language is written by expert drafters rather than by someone with an ax to grind at their kitchen table, or in the case of Measure 97, in the backrooms of public employee unions strategists.

On tax policy – or anything else for that matter – we need new laws that are crafted in the cauldron of legislative policy-making. The result, however imperfect it may be, will be better than one written by biased individuals.

The owners of Umpqua Dairy have good reasons to oppose Measure 97. Beyond their views, which I support, my reason is that Measure 97 is the product of left-wing, public employee union activists who believe the best tax is one someone else pays

In this case, we’ll all pay it! So, vote NO!

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 Washington Post carried a lead editorial the other day under this headline, “Donald Trump’s bet: We are all chumps.”

Well said, or rather, well written.

Every day, Donald Trump verifies that he has none of the qualities we look for in a President. None!

He believes he can be elected without sharing basic information about himself, including his tax and health records.

He shuns any discussion of public policy issues that would confront anyone in the Nation’s highest office.

Consider this quote from a column by Daniel Henninger from the Wall Street Journal:

“I would build a great wall. And nobody builds walls better than me, believe me. And I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall. Get ’em out of here. That’s right. Get ’em out of here. Nobody in politics talks like that. It violates what we now call ‘the political discourse.’”

He resorts, instead, to blowhard words about how important and competent he is – he knows more about ISIS, for example, than all of this nation’s military generals. His comments in the recent Commander-in-Chief forum put on by NBC News indicated that might fire a number a number of those military leaders if he gained the top office.

As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote in early September, “It’s difficult to think of a major political figure who has so belittled the U.S. military. Sunday is the 15^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which ushered in a ‘support out troop’ spirit that has endured regardless of party or opinion of wars that followed. But Trump goes beyond the standard criticism of the president and civilian leaders to condemn the military itself.”

Plus, early in the Republican campaign, Trump, incredibly, slammed U.S. Senator and former Vietnam prisoner-of-war John McCain because “I like people who weren’t captured.”

Incredible!

Yet, despite all this bluster, many citizens in this country apparently believe Trump can do the job.  At least, current polling has him close to Clinton.

What we need in a Commander-in-Chief is a person of sound mind and reasoned judgment, someone who doesn’t pop off at the least provocation. At the same time, we need someone who will seek to bolster U.S. standing the world, which has suffered markedly in President Obama’s tenure, witness the recent cold shoulder he received at the G-20 Summit. And, we need someone who will support America’s existing allies and solicit new ones in an increasingly complex world.

This is a lot to ask of a President, but it is exactly what should be asked, in fact demanded, of leaders.

We could have an argument about whether Hillary Clinton is able to meet these substantial challenges, including with recent concerns about her health. But that would, at least, be an argument.

In the case of Trump, there is no argument. He is not up to the task.

So, let’s all avoid calling into the “chump” category and look intently and honestly at the record.

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.

I was struck by this quote from a Washington Post editorial the other day:

“Trump’s core problem has always been Trump — his intellect, his temperament and his character. No teleprompter or change of campaign staff will change that. The only reason he remains remotely competitive is that his opponent has her own character issues.”

Trump conducts himself like a buffoon without any of the qualifications to take the Nation’s highest political office. The only reason that he is halfway competitive these days is that he is running against a candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose record indicates that she has been of the most allegedly corrupt holders of a high political office, Secretary of State, which comes on top of other questionable dealings in her long public life.

Except that in the area of corruption, she has a strong competitor in Donald Trump.

Consider this list of Trump corruptions compiled by Paul Waldman for the Washington Post, which have not, for whatever reason, Waldman says, captured the attention of the nation’s media:

• Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money
• Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses
• Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.
• The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money
• The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins
• Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did
• Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work
• Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work
• Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination
• Trump’s connections to mafia figures involved in New York construction
• The time Trump paid the Federal Trade Commission $750,000 over charges that he violated anti-trust laws when trying to take over a rival casino company
• The fact that Trump is now being advised by Roger Ailes, who was forced out as Fox News chief when dozens of women came forward to charge him with sexual harassment. According to the allegations, Ailes’s behavior was positively monstrous; as just one indicator, his abusive and predatory actions toward women were so well-known and so loathsome that in 1968 the morally upstanding folks in the Nixon administration refused to allow him to work there despite his key role in getting Nixon elected.

For anyone else, this list, alone, would be enough to disqualify an aspirant from seeking the Presidency. For Trump, though, he glories in these mis-deeds, apparently believing they, not only qualify him to be President, but should be “Trump-eted.”

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.

This presidential election cycle is one of the most unusual – not to mention troubling – in this nation’s history.

As voters, we have a terrible choice.

On one hand, with Donald Trump, we have a buffoon who is not qualified to hold the nation’s highest political office. One of his claims to fame – and he has many in his own words – is that he has demonstrated substantial business acumen, but those who have been left holding the bag after his numerous bankruptcies would question his credentials.

On the other hand, with Hillary Clinton, we have a corrupt public official who has demonstrated, over her time in and out of office, a blind eye toward ethics and honesty. Every day produces another list of, at least, indiscretions.

When I told a friend the other day that I might not be able to cast my ballot for either Trump or Clinton, he/she said that failing to vote for Trump would be a vote for Clinton.

My response? Not necessarily.

I understand that rationale, though, and others might say that a vote for neither would be a vote for Trump.

All things considered, I am still pondering my options.

There are essentially two.

One is to vote my conscience and cast a ballot for NEITHER, which means finding someone else to vote for, a third party candidate or a name with Presidential credentials such as, say Colin Powell or Paul Ryan.

The other option is to vote for Clinton because Trump’s buffoonery inspires nothing but fear. Who knows what he would do in the Oval Office with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

And, if that phrase sounds like a Clinton political ad, so be it. She may be the best of the two bad options.