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.

House Republicans are coming under increasing pressure because of the health care reform plan they have proposed to get rid of ObamaCare.

At least one reason is that they, in a tribute to PROCESS, have designed an approach that allows a specific bill to be considered by four committees before it gets to the House floor…that is, if it gets to the floor.

That path allows for many individuals and groups to raise questions about the bill as the draft is considered in public.

Consider the contrast to ObamaCare. When it was proposed in President Barack Obama’s first term, it came out one night – all 2,000 pages of it (in contrast to the repeal and replace bill that runs to about 200 pages) – and then was considered in the House and Senate almost immediately.

Few of those who voted on the bill had even read it, chief among them then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who admitted as much even as she voted “yes” and asked all of her colleagues to do the same.

In the end, only Democrats voted for ObamaCare and the process became another illustration of the duplicity of Obama. He talked a good line about bi-partisan cooperation, then acted in just the opposite way.

Process matters and the House Republicans this time around deserve credit for what they have designed. But, the trouble is they may not be able to produce a PRODUCT.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has tried artfully to describe the new compromise bill, saying it will be the best and perhaps the only chance to repeal and replace ObamaCare. If the approach fails, at least a 50-50 proposition, at best, Ryan says there won’t be another chance in this Congress.

Failure will stand as a major deficit for Republicans as they seek to express their majority.

As for the PRODUCT, here is a rendition of some of the good points about the compromise bill – a rendition provided, with all credit to a Wall Street Journal piece written by two leaders of the Republican health care compromise movement – Representatives Greg Walden from Oregon and Kevin Brady from Texas:

• Begins to return control of health care from Washington, D.C. back to the states, so that they can tailor their health-care systems to their unique communities.
• Provides immediate relief from ObamaCare by eliminating the penalties attached to the individual and employer mandates. Washington, D.C. will no longer force Americans to purchase expensive, inadequate plans they don’t need and cannot afford.
• Dismantles the ObamaCare taxes that have hurt patients, job creators and health-care providers. It repeals taxes on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, health-insurance premiums and medical devices.
• Preserves and protects insurance for the more than 150 million Americans who receive employer-sponsored health coverage. It provides ObamaCare enrollees with access to the existing financial support for their plans through the end of 2019. People will also be able to use their ObamaCare subsidy to purchase expanded insurance options—including catastrophic coverage—without being tied to the failing exchanges.
• Enables young Americans to continue coverage on their parents’ plans until age 26.
• Insures that persons with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied policies. Nobody can be charged more for getting sick—period.
• Proposes a new protection for patients who maintain continuous coverage in the individual and small-group markets. [A similar “continuous coverage” provision already exists for those who get insurance through an employer. Extending this safeguard is a simple but important reform that will give patients an incentive to enroll and stay enrolled. This protection is based solely on enrollment status, ensuring that patients will be treated equally no matter how healthy or sick they are.]
• Establishes a Patient and State Stability Fund to help low-income Americans afford health care and to repair the damage done to state markets by ObamaCare.
• Strengthens Medicaid, which is a critical lifeline for millions of Americans and refocuses Medicaid’s limited resources to the patients most in need.
• Provides tax credits to help Americans pay for the health-care options they want—not the ones forced on them by Washington. [The bill repeals ObamaCare’s flawed subsidies, effective in 2020. After that, individuals and families who don’t receive insurance through work or a government program become eligible for between $2,000 and $14,000 in tax credits a year. These credits, based on age and family size, will give millions of people new flexibility and freedom to buy insurance tailored to their needs. The full credit would be available to Americans with low or middle incomes and would slowly phase out as they climb the pay scale.]
• Strengthens and expands health-savings accounts so Americans can save and spend their health-care dollars the way they want and need.

There is a lot of stake both for Republicans and for Americans in this effort to reform health care. My hope is that an interest in perfection will not derail a solid compromise effort, which will accomplish at least two objectives – get rid of a government-run program, ObamaCare, and inject the private marketplace back into health care.

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.

Last night, I watched House Speaker Paul Ryan hold a town hall-type meeting with journalists to talk and answer questions about the Republican health care plan.

To say he was competent would be an understatement. He was able easily to discuss all aspects of the plan, including answering probing questions from the media without a teleprompter. He contended that the current process would be the last and best chance to do what Republicans had promised for years, which is to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

When Barack Obama took office as president more than eight years ago, he arrived at the White House with a pledge to overturn gridlock in Washington, D.C. and lead an effort to find compromise on pressing public policy issues.

Despite that pledge, over his eight years, he did just the reverse.

The best illustration was his personally proclaimed signature health care reform “achievement,” which came to be known, with his eventual blessing, as “ObamaCare.” It was passed with only Democrat votes in a huge indication of what illustrated his intention to work around Republicans, not with them.

Today, the legacy of Obama, no middle ground, is taking root in the new health care debate. Given all of the opposition over the last few days, it appears Republicans may not be able to get their act together sufficiently to undo ObamaCare and enact a new Health Care for Americans program, despite Ryan’s best and compelling rhetoric in defending of what his leadership has proposed.

Further, it also would appear that, even if Republicans coalesce around a plan, they will not get Democrat support, so we’ll be left at best with another “one side of the aisle action.”

As someone involved in politics and public policy for nearly 40 years, that makes me sick….for at least three reasons.

First, the current swirl indicates that we, as both Americans and those who represent us, have no ability to find what I call the smart middle ground. We like to contend for our position, to fight more than agree.

Second, it tends to illustrate that very good legislators – Speaker Ryan and Oregon’s Greg Walden can do good work only to be pilloried by colleagues more interested in sound bites that solid policy.

Third, it indicates that the likely result is continued movement toward a single payer health care system, a government-run and government-financed program. And, surely know this, if a single payer system emerges, it is you and I who will be paying for it with higher taxes.

The current reform proposal, crafted by three leading Republicans – Oregon’s own Walden, Kevin Brady from Texas and House Speaker Ryan – debuted the other day to immediate negative reactions from many quarters.   But, to the credit of the three, the intention was not to impose a bill on everyone as a done deal. Rather, they brought the bill forward in two committees, one chaired by Walden and the other by Brady.

Ryan emphasized that the 143-page document, in contrast to ObamaCare’s 2,000 pages, would be reviewed by four committees before it came to the House floor. He also emphasized that the bill was only one part of a three-part strategy, a second being administrative actions by House and Human Secretary Tom Price to reduce health care costs, and another bill that would deal with issues that could not be included in the “reconciliation process.”

Under “reconciliation,” admittedly an arcane rule, a bill cannot be filibustered by senators. They have to vote it up or down.

All of this was a far cry from what happened early in Obama’s tenure when the health care act, in its 2,000 pages, emerged overnight and moved quickly toward votes on the floors of the House and the Senate. It passed without one Republican vote.

And, further, in an incredible statement if you think about it, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had not even read the bill when she voted for it and asked all of her colleagues to do the same.

As I wrote in a previous post, there is a lot at stake here. For one thing, Republican credibility as those in charge in Washington, D.C. rides on the outcome, and, if majority Republicans don’t rally behind the bill, their tenure in leadership will start on a sour note. And, as Speaker Ryan noted, they may not have another chance to deal with ObamaCare.

Further, if the House Republican bill fails, it becomes even more likely that we’ll see what may have been the goal of many interests all along, especially Democrats — a government-run and government-financed single payer system.

To be sure, government has a clear role in health care. Witness Medicaid and Medicare. But, if we devolve to an entire government-run system, we’ll be sorry for years. The marketplace will have no effect on health care decisions and, sooner than you can say TrumpCare or ObamaCare, the government will be telling you who your physician will be – and you’ll be paying for it.

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 stakes appear to be growing on almost a moment-by-moment basis for Oregon’s Greg Walden, a past master of the arts of both politics and substance.

Those qualities, first on display in the Oregon Legislature, have given him a leadership post in the Republican House in Washington, D.C. And, now, as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he has been thrust into a leading position on a major Republican priority – getting rid of ObamaCare and putting a better health care plan in place.

The prospect is easier than the reality.

The bottom line is this: Do you want a replacement for ObamaCare that relies, at least to a degree on market forces, or do you want a government single payer system?

Walden’s national stature won’t necessarily rise or fall on his health care leadership position, for he is far more than a one-issue politician. Plus, anyone who knows him knows he is nothing if not honest, forthright and bright. I first encountered him in Salem when I lobbied him and then represented an association (the Oregon Association of Broadcasters) that included his family radio station in Hood River.

He’ll need all his best qualities in the coming debate where he will join Representative Kevin Brady, House chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and House Speaker Paul Ryan as they try to push what inevitably may come to be called TrumpCare, a term Democrats are already using to deride it, just as Republicans used the term ObamaCare, though former President Obama eventually adopted the term himself, saying “he was Obama and he cared.”

As for TrumpCare, President Donald Trump has endorsed the Walden/Brady/Ryan plan, though he probably didn’t have much to do with its substance.

One major risk is that ObamaCare created so many government hand-outs that it will be tough to overturn. They’ll be many stories — call them anecdotes in the worst sense of that term in public policy — of people disadvantaged or who will lose government-provided health insurance coverage under the Walden/Brady/Ryan bill.

The Wall Street Journal, for its part, labels the plan one that can set the stage for action in Congress to replace ObamaCare, though it says the first draft is just and only that – a first draft.

But, the Washington Post calls it “heartless and reckless.”

Various critics have labeled it “ObamaCare Lite” and you can almost hear the glee in their voices as they come up with what they believe is such a quotable moniker. The next thing you know the plan will be called “Walden-gate” or “Brady-gate” after the Watergate mess.

As written by Walden, Brady and their staffs, the “American Health Care Act” would be the most consequential GOP social-policy reform since the welfare overhaul of 1996. Not only does the bill repair the failures of the Affordable Care Act, it starts to correct many of the government-created dysfunctions that have bedeviled U.S. health care for decades.

Though the individual insurance market dominates the debate, the House’s Medicaid reform might end up being more important. This safety-net program originally meant for poor women, children and the disabled has morphed into general insurance for working-age, able-bodied adults above the poverty level, despite concerns about low-quality care and price controls.

The House would convert Medicaid’s funding formula from an open-ended entitlement into block grants to states. The amount would be determined by per capita enrollment and grow with medical inflation. States would thus have a reason to set priorities and re-target Medicaid on the truly needy.

In the individual market, the bill discards ObamaCare’s web of mandates and regulations in favor of incentives to buy health insurance in a deregulated market.

Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal wrote a paragraph this week that is worth considering for all of the potential opponents of Walden, Brady and Ryan. “It’s important to note something else,” Jenkins wrote. “Even if we grant sincerity to Mr. Obama’s dream of an egalitarian health-care system, ObamaCare is a fair representation of what political reality would deliver: A system in which elected politicians constantly try to woo specific voter blocs by shifting their costs to other health-care payers or to the general taxpayer.”

To me, Jenkins point is on target and represents an overall reason why it’s time for Congress to get rid of ObamaCare for good. It also would be helpful if the new program was able to get votes from other than just Republicans on the strength of the reality that one of the reasons ObamaCare failed was that it was drafted and voted for only by Democrats.

“It’s time for Republicans to stand up and be counted,” Jenkins continued. “Having been handed the gift of ObamaCare’s failure, can Republicans show voters they can do better with conservative principles. What’s at stake, in the end, is this: Either health care reform heads in a more market-based direction step by step, or it moves toward single-payer system step by step. If Republicans blow this chance and default to Democrats, they might as well endorse single-payer because that is where the politics will end up.”

And this footnote: It’s interesting to note that the media is reporting rising opposition to the plan specifically because it is being considered in public. That’s very different than what happened with ObamaCare several years ago when few Democrats had even read the plan – including then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comment admitting the same – before they voted it into law, without any Republican support.

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.

If you are a golfer, do you know how to apply the rules in your nine or 18-hole rounds?

The likely answer is no. And one of the reasons is that the rules are so complex they defy common understanding.

As one golfer, I have tried to learn the rules, but have encountered great difficulty in doing so, either a tribute to my lack of acuity or the complexity of the rules themselves. I prefer the latter.

So, those of us who play the game of golf saw a solid development the other day when an international committee produced a simpler set of golf rules, albeit in draft form.

There were a number of key changes, as listed below, but, overall, the number of rules was reduced from 34 to 24, a solid step on its own, regardless of the detail involved.

Here’s the way the Washington Post put it in a piece on the rule changes:

“Seeking to simplify their game and increase its popularity among younger generations, golf’s governing bodies previewed a broad set of rule changes Wednesday. The proposed revisions to golf’s official code of play are designed to make the rules ‘easier to understand and apply,’ and the overhaul represents arguably the most sweeping effort since the sport’s first known rule book was published in 1744.”

The joint effort to produce new rules came from the United States Golf Association, which oversees golf in the United States and Mexico, and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club, which oversees golf in the rest of the world. What starts now is a six-month public review period, which will consider comments from anyone, pros and amateurs alike. Then, the final rules are scheduled to go into effect by 2019.

It is worth noting that Oregon’s own Barb Trammell, the executive director of the Oregon Golf Association, served on the international committee that produced the rules changes. She said it was a good, solid effort to simplify the rules for the benefit all who play the game.

On its website, the USGA said this: “The main goal of the initiative is to help golfers everywhere by revising many rule procedures and outcomes for better consistency, simplicity and fairness and, overall, by bringing the rules up to date to meet the changing needs of the global game. The current review began five years ago [as opposed to the usual four-year cycle] because we recognized that these incremental revisions over the years have tended to make the rules more and more complex, especially as concepts and exceptions are added in an effort to give a ‘fair’ answer for every situation.”

Here, with a nod to the Washington Post article, is a list of the rules which make the most sense to me.

• No penalty for accidentally moving your ball while in search of it or on the putting green.
• No penalty when a player (or the player’s equipment or caddie) accidentally deflects his or her own ball while it’s in motion.
• When dropping a ball while taking relief, players can do so from just above the ground, rather than from a standing position with the arm outstretched.
• Time for a ball search is reduced from five to three minutes.
• Allow players to repair “any damage on the green,” including spike marks and shoe damage. [This is a substantial change because all of who have watched professionals or played the game ourselves have been irritated about how spike marks or other indentations can spoil a putt.]
• No penalty for hitting an unattended flagstick still in the hole on a putt from the green.
• No penalty for touching the line of play on the putting green, as long as a player did not improve the line.
• Players can take relief from a bunker for a two-stroke penalty, using the “back-on-a-line procedure.” [All of us who have struggled with bunker play may like this rule, even with the penalty.]
• Players are encouraged to employ “ready golf” and take shots out of turn when it makes sense to do so; players should make strokes in no more than 40 seconds.
• Players could have their number of strokes on a given hole capped under a “maximum score” format.

“I think golf’s emphasis on the rules can sometimes turn people away from it,” which is a quote attributed to golf pro Rory McIlroy. “To modernize and make it simple is a good thing. With what’s happened in the last couple of years, with some rulings and high-profile things that have happened at crucial stages in tournaments, people who look at that and might want to get into the game say: ‘You know what? It’s too complicated.’”

“It all just seemed to get away from the simple game that it once started out to be,” according to another pro, Adam Scott. “Lots of things have changed over time, and I just don’t think we moved the rules quickly enough as the game changed, and decisions became a big part of this and having to ask about intent and all these kind of things. It’s difficult. There’s competition golf and then there’s social golf, and I think some common sense should be applied to both.”

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.

If you go back to the presidential campaign trail, you heard a lot about ObamaCare, the federal health care coverage program inaugurated by President Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues in Congress.

But campaigning by Republicans to get rid of or reform ObamaCare is easier than actually doing it.

Even President Donald Trump, who campaigned heavily against ObamaCare, signaled that he understands doing the deed is incredibly complicated. So do members of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

The goal is to find a way to reform health care without it being just a “Republican deal.” The lack of bi-partisanship was one of the major problems with ObamaCare; not one Republican voted for it. It was only a Democrat deal.

According to the Wall Street Journal last week: “A growing number of Republican state leaders, not content to wait as Congress struggles to repeal the Affordable Care Act and overhaul Medicaid, are mobilizing in an effort to reshape how health care is delivered in their states.

“Encouraged by a Trump administration that appears receptive to such moves, more than a half-dozen states are seeking federal permission to impose coverage restrictions on many Medicaid beneficiaries, including drug testing and lifetime enrollment caps, some of which would be unprecedented.

“Maine, for example, may limit most people on Medicaid to five years of benefits. Kentucky could require many recipients to work. Wisconsin wants to drug-test enrollees.”

It’s not clear yet what Oregon will do, especially with Democrats in control of the legislature and the governor’s office. Budget gaps, as described below, will demand action of some kind.

Washington, D.C. sets broad guidelines for Medicaid, but states have some flexibility and the federal government can provide more through waivers.

Oregon recently gained approval of a new waiver that gave the state permission for what officials claim will be five more years of stability in how health care is delivered to Oregon’s poor – stability perhaps, but with problems over how much money is available.

The Oregonian newspaper wrote that the Oregon Health Authority, even with waiver approval, must come up with a new $350 million to pay for the program. The federal government’s contribution to Oregon’s Medicaid operation is decreasing from 78 percent to 75 percent of the total. That $350 million is just one of the factors contributing to a $935 million budget gap at the Oregon Health Authority, state officials confirmed.

To make matters worse, Oregon did not get $1.25 billion in federal money it had requested to add to the state’s coordinated care organizations, the new regional operations the state created in 2012 to manage healthcare for the poor and that now provide care for more than one million Oregonians.

Meanwhile, a U.S. House committee chaired by Oregon’s Greg Walden is proposing a new way to reshape the Medicaid program, an effort to resolve one of the most divisive issues in the debate among Republicans over how to replace the Affordable Care Act.

The Wall Street Journal carried an article this morning suggesting that Walden will need to use all of his honed political instincts to surmount opposition among Republicans, not to mention Democrats.

Under the committee’s plan states that grew their Medicaid programs under the health law could maintain their expanded programs until 2020 before federal funding would decrease. In a nod to states that did not expand Medicaid under ObamaCare and were concerned they would be penalized for not doing so, the committee proposed to allocate more Medicaid dollars to those states.

Beyond Medicaid, another approach reportedly under consideration by Republican leaders is to propose a wide-ranging reform bill and, in effect, challenge their Republican colleagues to oppose it. The belief is they won’t say no if given a chance to vote affirmatively on repeal and replace, given all their promises on the campaign trail.

Walden and his House colleague, Republican Kevin Brady from Texas, are planning to move forward on a full repeal-and-replace legislation in the next few days. They presented their plan to GOP senators at a meeting last week as part of an effort to get the House and Senate on the same page.

Tax credits for health care expenses are likely to be part of the House Republican leaders’ plan. They cited Trump’s endorsement of a tax credit to help people purchase insurance, saying it meant the president was on the same page. But conservative House Freedom Caucus members, who see the tax credit as a new entitlement, countered that Trump did not commit to refundable credits, a priority for the Caucus.

With all the to’ing and fro’ing, here is a quick summary of my own ObamaCare replacement plan, which I describe, not because I will have anything to do with the issue in Washington, D.C., but simply to indicate that I have thought about a plan, not just controversy about all of the politics.

1. Require all citizens to have health insurance. [As I’ve written before, think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance, though it will be difficult for many Republicans to stomach this mandate.]
2. Provide a catastrophic health insurance plan for those who cannot afford regular insurance and who need a lower-cost option.
3. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.
4. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.

Will “my plan” solve all of this nation’s health care problems? No. But, if elected officials of good will and good intent – yes, there are both in Congress – work together to find middle ground, health care issues could be resolved in a bi-partisan fashion without relying so much on too many government mandates and funding. A functioning marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

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 am the director of the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, just as I also direct the Department of Pet Peeves. I carry out both directorships based only on my whim and caprice, without paying attention to anyone else.

Call me a dictator if you want, but that’s the way it is.

So, here are more good quotes, with which I don’t necessarily agree or disagree, but which I found thought-provoking.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers on presidential address to Congress: “As usual for new Presidents, Mr. Trump’s main focus was domestic reform, and the foreign-policy sections offered no notable details. He was reassuring in calling for ‘a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world’ and he also invoked ‘American leadership.’ How that will manifest itself beyond destroying Islamic State, he did not say.

“Our guess is the speech won’t do much to move Democrats in a polarized Washington. But perhaps it will reassure nervous Republicans who have wondered when he would focus on the hard task of governing. The speech puts him on firmer ground for that challenge.

Wall Street Journal columnist on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos: “Certainly the teachers’ unions and the Democrats they hold in their pockets account for the core of the opposition to the choice and accountability. But the GOP has made its own grim contributions to our two-tiered public-school system. This includes in Illinois in 2010, when nearly half the Republicans in the state House provided the margin needed to kill a Chicago voucher program.”

From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Spanish viceroys who governed the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries had a saying when it came to the edicts—usually ill-judged and invariably late—from their sovereign across the sea: Obedezco pero no cumplo. I obey but I do not comply.

“It could be the motto of Donald Trump’s cabinet, at least on the foreign-policy side.

“Last week, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said during a visit to Mexico that there would be ‘no, repeat, no, use of military force in immigration operations. None.’ This was a few hours after Mr. Trump had described his deportation policy as ‘a military operation.’

“A few days earlier, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley insisted ‘we absolutely support a two-state solution’ for Israelis and Palestinians, just a day after the president said he was agnostic on the subject.

“Before that, it was Mike Pence affirming the centrality of NATO, after his boss had called it obsolete. And Jim Mattis, promising Iraqis that the administration does not intend to take their oil, despite the countless times Mr. Trump has lamented our failure to do so. And Mike Pompeo reiterating that, yes, it was Russia that was behind the DNC leaks, and not, as Mr. Trump speculated last year, a 400-pound man in New Jersey.”

Kathleen Parker on George Bush (43): “Bush’s brilliance shone, however, when he sided with the Fourth Estate over the current chief executive. A free press, he said, is ‘indispensable to democracy.’

“’We need an independent media to hold people like me to account,’ he said, adding: ‘Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive, and it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power.’

“Truer or timelier words are rare.

“Despite his flaws and misjudgments, Bush nevertheless was well-liked by many journalists for the very reason Trump isn’t. Bush had a heart. Self-deprecation came easily to him. He wore himself lightly.”

Strassel on George W. Bush: “Mr. Bush is a straight-up guy. While president, he treated the press and his political opponents with general courtesy—attending their events, living with their bias. He ran as a uniter and was far more genuine in his outreach than his grandiose successor (Barack Obama). He didn’t lie, or bully, or sic his IRS on his opponents, or spy on reporters. He took responsibility for his actions, notably big decisions like going to war.

“Not one bit of that earned him any credit. Go back and read the headlines from the Bush administration. They vary in substance from today’s coverage, but not the least in tone. Bush Derangement Syndrome entailed a vicious, daily assault by a media contemptuous of Mr. Bush’s intelligence, intentions and integrity. He was compared to Hitler and terrorists, accused of racism, homophobia and sexism. He was a plutocrat, out to rip off the nation’s old and poor. He orchestrated conspiracies ranging from 9/11 to the spread of avian flu. He lied, people died.

“None of this was true, but the goal of the media and the left from the start of the Bush presidency was to demonize and delegitimize the man and his agenda. It worked to a degree, in that it helped put the White House into the hands of Barack Obama—who, in contrast to Mr. Bush, used the power of his office to continue vilifying his opponents. Mr. Trump’s smash-mouth politics are simply a continuation of this trend.

“Which brings us to the president’s Tuesday address to Congress, and the shocked faces of all those women in white. Democrats were counting on Mr. Trump to unleash another gloomy tirade, the easier to continue demonizing him. Instead a gracious Mr. Trump called for unity, offered to work with the other side, and dangled some liberal priorities in front of Democratic noses—infrastructure spending, immigration reform. Nancy Pelosi looked verklempt.

“Democrats have been so eager to paint Mr. Trump as a right-wing lunatic that they’ve actually started to believe it—at their peril. The reality is that Mr. Trump is one of the least ideological Republican leaders in modern history. He wasn’t even a member of the GOP until recently. And while he clearly intends to uphold his campaign promises, he’s a negotiator who is always up for a deal. This is a man the Democratic Party can work with, if it chooses.”

And Strassel on Democrat opposition to all things Trump: “Then again, the Trump phenomenon is rooted in voters’ growing disgust with politics as usual. Although Mr. Trump’s personal approval ratings are far from stellar, the latest poll from this newspaper and NBC shows that voters appreciate the president’s directness, his decisiveness, and his intention to get things done. The poll also shows a growing sense of optimism and a sharp turn against the Democrats. Obstruction would be taking a big chance in these times.”

Permit this director to add a footnote on former President George W. Bush. I thought he conducted the Office of the President with the same skills a CEO would use – involvement, but not over-the-top micro-management. As stated above, he also had the trait of self-deprecation, which made him all the more likeable.

My sense is that history will treat him better than he was treated while in office.

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.

It might have been the first “presidential” address for this mercurial president, Donald Trump.

Whether you agree with him or not – and many Americans do not – Trump did appear presidential in his address to a joint session of Congress.

He did not fulminate or go beyond his usual pale of criticizing everyone but himself. He left the media, the “opposition party,” alone. He stuck to his script, reading from a teleprompter for the majority of his remarks. He did not cover new policy ground, but reiterated his positions on taxes, getting rid of ObamaCare, exalting America’s place in the world by an “America-first” strategy, and renewing his pledges to do something about immigration.

Behind him on the platform sat Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, often visible in live television coverage. They appeared to lead the clapping for many of Trump’s comments, some with a standing ovation. As the camera panned around the room, most of the Democrats stoically kept their seats.

One of the loudest standing ovations of the evening went to the widow of the slain U.S. serviceman, Riley Owens, who died recently on a U.S. military mission.

Some commentators criticized Trump as attempting to capitalize on the incredible sorrows of a recent widow, but, as one observer, I thought Trump struck the exactly the right chord, both in terms of honoring the selfless actions of a man who gave his life for his country, as well as underlining his, Trump’s, support for the military.

In many ways, his “use” of symbols in the audience conjured up images of what Barack Obama and Bill Clinton before him had done in their State of the Union addresses.

As I said, I thought Trump struck the exactly the right image as appeared genuine and heartfelt, good characteristics for Trump to emphasize.

Where does all of this go from here?

Perhaps nowhere in the sense that Trump and the Rs remain far apart from the Democrats who can be counted on to continue to oppose and deride every move from the other side. [In the spirit of full disclosure, as I watched the address on TV, I did see Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democrat leader, clap once. He probably won’t remember that he did.]

There are many tests ahead, but as Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal several days ago, one of the first will be the confirmation fight over U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. As Noonan suggests, Democrats in the Senate would be well-served to confirm Gorsuch, given his solid credentials, and save their bullets for an easier target, perhaps even the next Court nominee if there is one soon – and that would be a nomination by Trump calculated to turn the Court conservative.

Further, who knows how the Trump “presidential” look will last. The betting here is not long, but one day represents a good start.