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 questions on my mind lately is whether third party candidates would ever have a chance to be successful at the ballot.

The likely answer, I think, is no.

But, I wish for success if third party candidates would run on a platform of finding middle ground on the tough public policy issues facing us in Oregon, as well as at the national level.

Too often, those who run for office campaign on banners appealing to their bases, leaving the middle ground to others who might want to solve problems, but cannot put together the kind of support that translates to winning elections.

The Democrat and Republican candidates only want, figuratively, to stand on street corners and yell about their views. Or, they want to patter the normal lines of the right or the left as if those thoughts are their own. Oregon’s junior senator, Jeff Mearkley, did this recently on consideration of the tax reform bill and my view is that he did himself no favors in the absence of personal clarity and candor. If he wanted to oppose tax reform, then do so in his own words.

Merkley and others of his ilk think they are representing Americans. They aren’t – at least not all Americans, including me. So, third party, rise and be well.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way yesterday:

“Could 2018 be the year independent candidates find success? Successful third-party candidates are few and far between in the U.S., in part because they tend to lack the national donor networks and on-the-ground infrastructure utilized by the nation’s two main political parties.

“But what if more money and outside energy were tossed behind an effort to get political independents un-beholden to a party? By throwing its weight behind more centrist politicians, an organization called Unite America is attempting to do this, partly by tapping the resources of its deep-pocketed donors.

“The group, formerly known as The Centrist Project, has endorsed five independent candidates running for Senate and governor. The candidates are Governor Bill Walker of Alaska, the nation’s only governor who is a political independent; Terry Hayes, candidate for governor of Maine; Greg Orman, who is running for governor of Kansas; Neal Simon, a U.S. Senate candidate in Maryland; and Craig O’Dear, who hopes to unseat Democrat Claire McCaskill as a senator from Missouri.

“The Denver-based group has a wide array of backers, including private-equity fund executives and CEOs in addition to smaller donors. United America, which voluntarily discloses its biggest financial backers on its website, has more than 30 donors who each have given more than $5,000. It says it does not take money directly from corporations, unions, or political action committees. Unite America’s structure includes a 501(c)(4) non-profit that recruits and trains potential candidates, in addition to a committee that supports candidates and a 501(c)(3) that ‘educates the public about independent leadership.’”

On Monday, the Journal reported that it caught up with Walker, the Alaska governor who until 2014 was a Republican. He was in D.C. for President Donald Trump’s summit with governors on gun violence at the White House. Walker became an independent in his bid for governor to join a ticket that had the backing of the Alaska Democratic Party. His lieutenant governor ran as a Democrat.

He said he enjoys being free from the pressure of worrying about whether his stances on contentious issues like gun violence neatly align with the party leadership. “I’m certainly not saying everyone just [toes] the party line, but I don’t have to worry about that,” he said. He also said that his conversations with constituents are more natural because “they’re not worrying about whether I’m an R or a D.”

Enough for the detail, though it’s good to know that third party candidates – ones separate from stultifying party affiliations – are making an effort to win elections.

As a country, we are still recovering from former president Barack Obama who drove the country decidedly liberal with an emphasis on over-the-top government regulation, even though Obama came into office saying that he wanted to surmount party politics. We also are forced to withstand President Donald Trump whose constant tweets ridicule the Office of the President and who, despite some personal popularity, defies political labels. Not Republican. Not Democrat. Not third party.

So, we need candidates who will try to solve public policy problems we face without two-party affiliation and without rancor or egotism.

I also hope third-party candidates would not immediately turn to the government for every solution to every problem. But, if they answer the question about government involvement in the affirmative, then I hope they will design solutions with the interests of centrist Americans at heart.

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.

My friend, Bend Senator Tim Knopp, showed up on the gun control issue yesterday by introducing a bill in Salem that would make threats against schools a felony, not just a misdemeanor.

In that way, I agree with him on the need for a new law as I wrote in this blog a few days ago, thus defying my normal hesitancy to write about the subject.

Here is the Oregonian newspaper’s story on the Knopp proposal:

A person threatening to attack a school could be charged with a felony and not just a misdemeanor in Oregon under an amendment introduced Monday amid a spate of threats in the wake of the Feb. 14 Florida high school shooting.

Sen. Tim Knopp, a Republican, represents the central Oregon town of Bend where a threat last week resulted in the arrest of a 16-year-old for disorderly conduct.

Knopp said Oregon’s district attorneys are constrained by current law that only allows misdemeanor charges such as menacing, disorderly conduct, and harassment in such cases.

“Creating a new statute to address these circumstances will go a long way in deterring future threats and punishing individuals threaten the well-being of our kids, families, and communities,” Knopp said in a statement

The amendment is similar to existing laws in other states criminalizing making a threat to commit a crime that will result in great bodily harm, regardless of whether the person intended to carry out the threat, Knopp’s office said.

I am not sure how this proposal will fare in the Oregon Legislature, which is meeting in Salem for another couple weeks.  But what I do know that Senator Knopp has performed as valuable service by making this “threat” proposal.

Plus, he agrees with me or I do with him, so that, for me, is another way to underline the need for this new state law.

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.

A letter writer to the Oregonian over the weekend got answer right to the question posted in the headline.

The short session, the writer said, should be for “adjusting budgets due to up or downturns in revenue, for fixing non-conforming statutes that are in conflict with state or federal law, and addressing any immediate public safety threats.”

From me, ditto.

The letter writer went on: “The short annual session is not for large, partisan, complicated policy, statutory or constitutional changes. Unfortunately, the latter is exactly what is happening in the Oregon Legislature today. Regardless of their merits or demerits, cap and trade, taxing repatriated investments, making health care a constitutional right and other contentious concepts are complex issues. They are simply too complex and far-reaching to be heard, passed and sent to the governor during a short session.”

Again, ditto from me.

A couple years ago, Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, then Senate Minority Leader, put it this way:

“As I recall, Oregonians were sold on the idea of annual meetings with the promise that the “short” session would focus on balancing the budget, making small legislative ‘fixes,’ often referred to as “housekeeping measures,” and responding to emergencies that need immediate attention from the Legislature.

“I’m sorry to report that the ‘short session’ has become little more than a setting for the majority party to pursue an over-reaching agenda of tax increases, regulation, and ideological issues dear to the progressives who rule Portland and to a great extent, the rest of Oregon.”

The main advocate of short sessions, Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, no doubt would offer a different view. He campaigned for the short-session change in Oregon’s Constitution as a way to help put legislators on a more even footing with the Executive Branch.

I don’t know if Senator Courtney likes the way short sessions are going, but I hope he will lead the legislature to tighten the agenda.

Dealing with the large, complicated issues over a 35-day session is tough. There simply is not enough time to rush complicated matters through to final votes. The time for such matters is the odd-numbered, year-long session when legislators are in Salem for about six months.

The prospect of all of this prompted me, as a long-time state lobbyist, to vote against the annual session proposal when it was on the ballot. Without trying to say that I am prescient, I thought I knew that, before long, short sessions would take on a life of their own. At the extreme, annual sessions could make the Oregon Legislature like Congress, which is not, at least these days, a laudable goal.

Further, there is just not time, or perhaps even the inclination, for legislators to ask a basic set of questions that should precede any action on individual bills.

I have written about these before, but here they are again:

1.  What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution? This question is seldom raised or discussed.
2.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play? The answer, if the question is even raised, is rarely no.
3.  If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending — in other words, what is the expected return on investment? This is an apparently foreign concept.
4.  How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for money to fund its operations? This is seldom discussed, unless raised by those lobbying for Oregon businesses.

If legislators were to ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better legislature and better results.

And, we also might see a return to the basic concept of a short legislative session – time in Salem to handle small, but important, issues that cannot wait until the odd-numbered year.

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.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have never been a union member, so that makes me hesitant to write about union issues.

But there is a case – Janus v. AFSCME — before the U.S. Supreme Court this week that has huge implications for public employee unions around the country. From me, it compels a few comments.

Here is the question posted by the case:

• Do you force public employees to pay union dues?
• Or, do you give public employees the option to pay such dues?

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the case this way:

“The Supreme Court on Monday will hear the landmark First Amendment case Janus v. Afscme that challenges whether public employees can be compelled to subsidize union advocacy. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, requiring “a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical”—and unconstitutional.”

Advocates in Oregon have tried to get this issue on the ballot a couple times, but always failed.

In “right to work” states – there are 28 in the country and that does not include Oregon – unions cannot force public employees to join their ranks. In the other states, including Oregon, employees have no choice and, often, those employees don’t like where union leaders direct the dues employees pay, including to major political campaigns regardless of what employees think about those campaigns.

In a piece by John Stossell in the social media site, Reason, Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said, “If we lose this case, the entire public sector will be right to work.”

Stossell writes on: “That outcome would thrill Rebecca Friedrichs. She’s the teacher who filed the right-to-work lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court two years ago. Friedrichs got mad at the California Teachers Association during the last recession. Good teachers at her school were about to be laid off. She’d tried to protect them by getting all teachers to agree to a slight pay cut.

“’All America was taking a pay cut then,’” she told Stossell. “’Why should we be any different?’”

“But her union wouldn’t even allow her to survey other teachers. They told me, Rebecca, don’t worry about those teachers who were about to lose jobs. We’re going to give them a seminar on how to get unemployment benefits.”

The Supreme Court heard the Fredrichs case about a year ago, but then Justice Antonin Scalia died. It’s likely he would have been the needed fifth vote to carry the day 5 to 4. With his death, the court appeared to be deadlocked 4 to 4.

The new suit, filed this time by another government worker, Mark Janus, goes to a Court where Neil Gorsuch is now seated and unions are worried he will supply the fifth vote.

For their part, union officials contend it’s not fair for employees to gain the benefit of collective bargaining when they don’t pay for it. They say they provide “needed protections” for workers.

When I represented the management in state government union negotiations a number of years ago, I heard this refrain over and over. But unions also directed a lot of their employee-paid money to political contributions, almost always to the Democrat side of the ledger.

That prompts me to say that I have what I believe is an easy answer here. Create two dues structures. One would finance collective bargaining if, in fact, there is to be collective bargaining for government employees. The second portion of dues would be directed to political contributions. Require unions to keep two separate books.

Then, give employees the freedom to opt out of the political contribution portion.

Sounds easy. But I suspect union leaders won’t stand for cutting back their ability to make contributions, especially to Democrats who almost always support their views.

Now, it’s true that the Janus case is not just about union political contributions, and neither was the earlier case filed by Fredrichs. Both involve collective bargaining positions with which the employees disagreed.

Still, my “two dues structure” proposition is just one man’s view of an equitable solution.

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.

When I was a private sector lobbyist in Oregon for more than 25 years, I purposed that I would never represent several interests, including pro gun advocates.

Well, for one thing, they probably would never have asked me to do so.

Now, in retirement, I have purposed that I would never write about guns.

Recent events have prompted me to re-consider, so here goes.

The most recent school shooting in Florida gave huge and renewed emphasis to the problems of guns in schools. One piece of good news was that students, both those from Parkland, as well as from around the country, rallied around gun control – and some of them even met with President Trump to nail the message.

But, wouldn’t you know it? The next day the National Rifle Association (NRA) came out with its solution: More guns.

It said arming teachers would do the trick. Give them guns so they could shoot the shooters.

The Washington Post entered the fray this morning with a headline that read, “For the NRA, freedom means being heavily armed and scared to death. The answer to the problem of gun violence cannot just be more guns.”

As for Trump, no surprise there. He has changed his views on guns over the years, and he’s now been parroting the NRA mantra that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

In classic Trumpian fashion, he takes ideas that other Republican politicians have espoused and goes one step further.

The legislature in Oregon, meeting in regular session, is considering what may be a small, but significant, change in Oregon law. Currently, a spouse convicted of domestic violence is prohibited from owning a firearm. A bill passed in the Senate expands the ban to include other intimate partners.

For what it’s worth – and some will say not much – I support two ideas to limit guns.

One is often mentioned, but never gets enough muscle to surmount the NRA. It is to control access to assault rifles. Why would a regular citizen need such a weapon? He or she wouldn’t!

The second idea is to create a new law that says that the THREAT of violence at a school would be a crime in itself, one that would allow law enforcement authorities to make an arrest. That could have helped in the Parkland tragedy.

The shooter had issued a variety of threats over social media and law enforcement authorities were aware of those threats. Some observers have said the authorities should have done more with those threats.

I say yes and give them a new authority – allow them to make arrests instead of waiting for a crime to occur.

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 department, one of two I direct with full and complete authority, sometimes deals with a hot button issue of mine – the use of language.

One risk in focusing on this topic is that, in writing it, I may fall victim to language misuses of my own. Still, it is worth focusing on the topic in the spirit of supporting adherence to using words properly.

So, here are several pet language peeves.

• Splitting an infinitive.

All of us make this mistake from time to time, either in speaking or writing. And some may believe that it is foolhardy to advocate avoiding the split.

A recent example occurred in the Wall Street Journal, usually a fount of solid word and language usage. Here’s a paragraph from the Journal:

“Lawmakers have been feuding since September, when Mr. Trump ended an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, but gave Congress until March 5 to pass its replacement. DACA protects young immigrants from deportation and allows them to temporarily work legally in the U.S.”

Notice the phrase “to temporarily work.” It would have much stronger to write, “to work temporarily.”

• Using nouns as verbs.

This mistake occurs more and more often. One example in the golf world is to use golf as a verb, as in “to golf your ball.” No. You hit your ball or strike your ball. You don’t golf your ball.

Another example of this is the use of the word helm as a verb, as in “to helm your process.” No. You are to direct the process; you do not helm it.

Or, this recent example, again from the Wall Street Journal.

“The social-media sites and search engines clearly did far too little to police their content for malicious trolls and in the process misled millions of Americans. They need to do more to take responsibility for the content they midwife.”

Midwife is not a verb. It is a noun.

• “None” as singular

One of the most frequent mistakes in talking or writing is to modify the singular word none with a plural verb, such as “none are.”

Consider this sentence: None of the persons are going to attend the game. In correct language usage, the sentence should read – None of the persons is going to attend the game.

To the ear, the word “are” often sounds better than the word “is.” So, if I ruled as language king for a day, I would change the rule and allow the plural verb to modify the singular noun.

• Using too many “ize” words

One of my lobbying partners, still a good friend, often used the word “catalyze,” which grated on my ears. We talked about it and he said it was a good word. It meant, I guess, to gather support for an idea, as in “to catalyze a process.”

Or, consider the word “prioritize,” which occurs often in modern usage. I suggest it would be better to say or write, “to establish priorities.”

It may not be necessary to draw a bright line here because some uses of “ize” may be legitimate. But, my view is to try to limit “ize.” When you are inclined to use one, consider if there is a better way.

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, as the director of this department, am choosing to open it again because there has been a lot of grist for the mill lately.

From Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post:  “But there is no depth to which Trump will not sink in defense of the only thing he holds dear: Himself. And so, the nation witnessed a tweet in which the president, a leader to whom the country once looked for healing in times of national tragedy, instead used innocent victims, high school children mowed down in their own school, to make his bogus, self-interested point.

“Did he? Did he really use dead children to attack an investigation into his campaign and his conduct in office? Yes, he did. This is a person devoid of empathy. He can experience the world only through the prism of his own ego.”

Comment: Again, Trump proves that, no matter the situation or the grief, his world revolves around himself.

From Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal: “With all the good news about the new Republican tax law, you may be surprised to learn that the fight isn’t over. Behind the scenes, reformers face a new challenge: Navigating the IRS swamp.

“It’s a little-known fact that for 35 years the Internal Revenue Service has exempted itself from the most basic regulatory oversight. When the Labor Department or the Small Business Administration create ‘major’ or ‘significant’ rules or guidance, they are required to submit them for centralized review. That ensures regulations are consistent with the law and with White House priorities and that they’ve been analyzed for costs, benefits and flexibility.

“But in 1983, the Treasury Department signed a memorandum with the Office of Management and Budget that largely exempted the IRS from submitting its rules to White House review via OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The memo still stands today. In the face of congressional attempts at oversight, the IRS issued a 1996 opinion claiming that tax statutes are in and of themselves responsible for any costs or inflexibility—that the IRS’s rules are, by definition, pure distillation of law.

“And the IRS is already playing games with the GOP tax reform. Just a week after passage, the IRS rushed out guidance declaring that most taxpayers couldn’t deduct prepaid 2018 property taxes on their 2017 returns to claim that benefit before the new law kicks in. The IRS decided this with no input from the White House or other agencies. IRS bureaucrats—many of them implacably opposed to his White House and bitter over recent congressional oversight—will have plenty of opportunity to cause trouble with its interpretations of a complicated tax reform.”

Comment: So, this account underscores a reality – the bureaucracy is alive and well in Washington. It would appear obvious that Trump and White House should do something about this over-reach.

From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “Compromise is often good. On gun law, Republicans oppose banning assault weapons such as the AR-15, the one the Parkland shooter used, because of the numbers, power and contributions of gun owners and the NRA. Democrats oppose banning late-term abortion because of the numbers, power and contributions of the rising left, feminists and Planned Parenthood.   The idea: Trade banning assault weapons for banning late-term abortion. Make illegal a killing machine and a killing procedure.”

Comment: Noonan hits on two issues – guns and abortion – that scared me when I lobbied in the Oregon Legislature.  I usually would leave the Capitol building when either issue was under consideration.  On guns, the legislature would be hard-pressed to find middle ground and pro-gun advocates would be in the hearings, often carrying guns. On abortion, legislators were almost powerless, given the U.S. Supreme Court prerogatives, but, still, abortion-on-demand advocates filled hearing rooms.

From William McGurn in the Wall Street Journal: “Because the tax reform passed without a single Democratic vote, good news about the economy is bad news for Democratic candidates. It further means the Democratic message is rooted in enabling Washington dysfunction, because they cannot run as people willing to reach across the aisle to get things done.”

Comment: Both the Ds and the Rs often in D.C. often have what they believe is a political stake in continuing dysfunction in Congress. The McGurn quote – “because they cannot run as people willing to reach across the aisle to get things done” – is a sad commentary on two things, Members of Congress and us, as voters.

And a comment without a quote: Enough? One school shooting is one too many – and there have been 18. It’s time for Congress to act to ban buying assault rifles. At least that! Also, beyond that, my idea is to pass a law creating a new crime: It would be to classify making a threat of gun violence at a school a crime and, thus, law enforcement authorities would have reason to act – not just until there is an action, but in response to the threat of an action.

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.

A story in the Washington Post a couple days ago caught my eye because it recounted information about how a lobbyist in New York misused his position, blurring the line, if not erasing it, between political contributions and lobbying.

The tale reminded me of a case more than 30 years ago when I worked as a lobbyist briefly for what then was a major company in Oregon, Tektronix. I was assigned to go to California to lobby for the company at the legislature in Sacramento.

There, I was stunned to learn that, to get a meeting with a key legislator, I was expected to deposit money at the front desk in a jar in his office. And, not just a pittance! A $5,000 check.

I didn’t do it, nor did I get the meeting.

Talk about pay for play!

In New York, the tale the lobbyist told, according to the Post, “included six-figure campaign contributions to the governor there, Andrew Cuomo, made from a company with business before the state, that were purposefully divided up to hide their origin.

“There were private plane trips, courtesy of the lobbyist’s clients, for Cuomo days before his first election — not to mention a deep-sea fishing expedition for his campaign manager.”

The lobbyist said he raised “a considerable amount” of money for Cuomo in 2010 and then volunteered in the 2014 campaign headquarters while raising still more money — all as he tried to secure state actions benefiting his clients.

And, be sure of this – the lobbyist wanted a return for his “investment.”

The Post suggests that the broader story being painted is an enduring pay-to-play culture in New York, where money and friends buy access and power.

All of this leads me to comment about Oregon.

I don’t mean to paint things as lily-white, for who knows what’s in the minds of legislators or lobbyists as they deal with policy and politics here. But the fact is that, in Oregon, during my 40 years of lobbying the Oregon legislature, I was never asked to buy a meeting.

To be specific:

1. I never had to pay to arrange a meeting with a legislator.
2. When I provided a political contribution to a legislator running for office (and, by the way, contributions are not allowed while the legislature is in session, only when individuals are on the campaign trail), I never expected anything in return and told the legislator as much.
3. Well, to clarify, I may have wanted consideration of a view I was expressing on behalf of a client, but never an action. My view was that legislators should consider what I had to say for a client, then make up their own mind about what actions to take, if any.
4. The political contributions I organized on behalf of clients were based on the quality and sincerity of a legislator I wanted my clients to support, plus his or her willingness to consider the views of those affected by legislative decisions. Not party affiliation. Not a commitment in advance for a legislative action.
5. Further, as one lobbyist, if I was following the campaign trail to organize political contributions, I always separated that process from meetings on policy issues. The separate meetings represented one way to create a bright line between money and action.

This paints a very different picture for Oregon than for either California or New York.

Now, lest I be viewed as some sort of polly-anna, let me admit that political contributions may play a role in Oregon, but usually in the aggregate, not contribution-by-contribution.

My hope remains that all of us expect the best reasoned decisions to carry the day at the Capitol, not the transfer of money.

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 is one of two departments I direct and it is open fairly often because of all the good quotes out there, written by a host of commentators.  [The other, by the way, is the Department of Pet Peeves.]

Here is a new summary of good quotes.

From James Hohmann in the Washington Post:  “Not only do Trump’s remarks in Ohio underscore the hollowness of such bipartisan bromides, they further poison the well. Why would Democrats cooperate or compromise with someone who questions their loyalty to the country?

[This, when Trump used the word “treason” to criticize Democrats.]

“While the president was certainly being flip, this wasn’t just idle talk. It appears to be part of a coordinated effort to raise questions about the motives of the opposition. The Republican National Committee pushed out a web advertisement earlier Monday attacking Democrats for not standing during the State of the Union.

“Bigger picture, the president has a pattern of diluting the potency of language. Trump cheapens the value of significant words by overusing and misusing them.”

Comment: Agree. Trump is a master of mauling language, usually to shield himself from taking responsibility for anything.

The Washington Post has reported that the word “beautiful” is one of Trump’s favorites. He’s used it at least 1,500 on Twitter and in speeches since he began running for office, according to the data at Factbase. He uses the word indiscriminately, the way a teenager might use “cool.” It is a device rather than a descriptor.

From Hill.com: “Everyone across the ideological spectrum agrees this (the shutdown tendency) is a terrible way to run the government, but the inability of congressional leaders to reach meaningful compromises has made it routine.

“’You know you’re eating a loaf of bread, yet you’re only being given the money to buy one slice at a time. It costs more when you buy things in small pieces,’” said Max Stier, the president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, in an interview.

“Congress is really responsible for failing to operate the government in a way that’s responsible from a fiduciary perspective. … Everyone who runs an organization ought to understand this because no other organization could run this way. … You need a longer runway.”

Comment: The problem is that both sides – the Rs and the Ds, not to mention Trump himself – see political benefits from shutting down government. Frankly, that’s stupid and history has proven it.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers:  “The annual budget deficit is cruising toward a cool $1 trillion, yet some Republicans are flirting with adding another new entitlement called paid family leave. The GOP’s best hope is that tax reform can deliver at least 3 per cent growth and delay the fiscal reckoning. Republicans have to handle the urgent task of rebuilding the military in a dangerous world, but one certainty: Entitlement reform must happen, or we’ll be defending ourselves against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear missiles with Medicare checks.”

Comment: The latter line is good line and true. If we don’t fund the military adequately, “we’ll be defending ourselves against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear missiles with Medicare checks.” I don’t mean to come across as militaristic, but a strong defense is an important credential in this country and all you have to know to recognize that is the 911 attack.

From Oregonian editorial writers:  “True leaders don’t need to campaign because their actions speak for themselves. They tackle the state’s shortcomings head on and display the vision and steel to push through to a solution. Governor Kate Brown should keep in mind that her best opportunity to win over voters is by doing the job she has already been elected to fill.”

Comment: Again, excellent point. The governor can win re-election by showing the leadership she’s capable of – the leadership to tackle major problems head on and jawbone legislative leaders to join her.

From Daniel Henninger in the WSJ: “Controversies come and go for any presidency. Some, such as Watergate and Whitewater, kept going because it was possible to report events that truly advanced the story. The Russian collusion story went moribund months ago, with Representative Adam Schiff reduced this week to waving the Steele dossier as if it was new news.

“Anyone else in politics would have let the fires under the collusion issue burn down. Is it a potential legal problem? Sure. Should it be a destructive daily bonfire? No.

“Mr. Trump is combative not for political reasons but because he’s been combative all his life. In the Washington Swamp, he has found the ultimate Trumpian arena. The Swamp is his sparring partner. Don’t let the raging tweets fool you. He loves it.”

Comment: Henninger hits it out of the park as he so often does. While the “Russian story” should have died months ago, it lingers, but Henninger reminds – don’t let the raging tweets fool you, Trump loves the combat in what, for him, is an ultimate arena where all eyes seemingly are on him.

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 question in the headline can keep you up at night if you let it.

Trump is the most unusual president in recent memory if not in history of the presidency, though, to verify that statement, you would have had to live through all the others — obviously impossible.

Still, what makes Trump tick?

In the Washington Post a few days ago, an editor, Mark Fisher, contributed several salient thoughts. He was one of a series of editors or reporters at the Post who are asked, from time to time, to leave their normal gigs and think, not to mention write, about the big picture.

Fisher, has been the Post’s enterprise editor, local columnist and Berlin bureau chief, and he has covered politics, education, pop culture and much else in three decades on the Metro, Style, National and Foreign desks.

This time, he wrote:

“For a president who often sees himself as standing tall against powerful forces that only want him to fail, things were looking up (Fisher wrote last week). The tax cuts were selling well, he had gotten credit for a pretty good State of the Union address, employment numbers were good, and his approval rating was improving.

“Any other president would have seen this as a week to claim some credit (Congress passed a spending bill, with bipartisan support), do some presidential reassuring (the markets sure could have used some calming words), maybe take the high road and wave the flag (the Olympics are a fine opportunity for that).

“But, in case anyone hadn’t noticed, this is not your standard presidency, and that made a whack-a-mole day such as Friday (last Friday) nearly inevitable. President Trump’s week ended with the sudden departure of a speechwriter who had been accused of brutally attacking his wife, the president’s defense of another staffer who allegedly assaulted two ex-wives, the chief of staff’s inartful attempts to recast his own handling of that episode, and the revelation that the president doesn’t read his full intelligence briefings.”

The conclusion Fisher reaches:

“No one would argue that Friday’s tumult was planned or desirable. By most historical standards, it was monumentally embarrassing. But the way Trump operates, such days can be downright beneficial. The president learned at a very early age that what humiliates, damages, even destroys others can actually strengthen his image and therefore his bottom line.”

To Fisher, Trump always follows two precepts:

• Always double down on your position – or your opposition.

Fisher contends that, through the most trying moments of the past two years, Trump has regularly argued in favor of men on his side who have been accused of bad behavior against women, whether that was Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama; Fox News figures Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly; last week’s case du jour, Rob Porter; or Trump himself.

He weathered the “Access Hollywood” tape that many of his aides thought would sink his campaign, and he successfully batted away allegations from more than a dozen women that he was guilty of sexual misconduct toward them.

Last Saturday morning, the president tripled down. “People’s lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation,” he tweeted. “There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”

• Always be the focus of attention. Aides who get too big for their britches won’t be around for long.

On the left and the right alike, last week was perceived as a disaster for Trump. “A PR nightmare for the White House,” said the conservative Weekly Standard. “A mess from start to finish.”

Even inside the White House, the events seemed to call for a mea culpa. “We all could have done better over the last few days,” deputy press secretary Raj Shah said Thursday. From South Korea, Vice President Pence made the same point.

But Fisher says that’s not how Trump responds to pressure or error. He learned in the 1970s, from one of his mentors, Roy Cohn, that, when you face criticism, justified or not, “you tell them to go to hell and fight the thing.”

In 2016, at the Republican convention, after Hillary Clinton ran a TV ad in which wide-eyed young children watched broadcasts of Trump’s coarsest insults and most vulgar language, some advisers wanted Trump to ease off. He’d already won the nomination and things were going well. Why not tap the brakes and glide along the high road, they argued.

Trump instead leaned hard on the accelerator, ratcheting up his rhetoric, pressing for a convention lineup that doubled down on appealing to his base — Willie Robertson of “Duck Dynasty,” the chief of Ultimate Fighting Championship, music by Southern, white classic rock acts.

He’s done this all his adult life. In the 1980s, Trump didn’t push back when tabloid newspapers turned the collapse of his first marriage into a daily soap opera. He actively participated in the scripting of the drama, calling gossip writers, dishing out salacious morsels almost by the hour.

Trump recognized the almost unbounded power of being that model, and he recognized that bad behavior and the notoriety it generated didn’t undermine that image. For many people, it actually enhanced it.

Inside that logic, it makes sense to look away from a stock market swinging like a bungee cord and instead lash out at Democrats as “treasonous” or announce that the president would “love to see a shutdown” of the government.

Trump simply does what he’s always done — whatever it takes to claim center stage.

Many of us – me included – have a tendency to view Trump as we would view others in high-profile political positions. Not right!

Best to view Trump through special lenses — as a person unto himself –- as one who “doubles down” on bad news, then tries to come across the only one who can take “center stage.”

My question is this: Can we survive another three years of this three-ring circus with a master like Trump?

And as a footnote, Hill.com just published a list of 36 Democrats who could be in a position to take on Trump in 2020 if he decides to run for re-election. Missing from the list? Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley who appears to fancy himself as a presidential candidate, a point I have had difficulty believing based on many years of lobbying Merkley when he was in Salem. No doubt he’ll be irritated at Hill.com’s omission.