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 doesn’t take a genius to suggest that President Donald Trump is in even more trouble today than he was yesterday.

To illustrate, even I can recognize the jeopardy!

The box Trump created for himself just got smaller this week as two former associates, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort had their days in court. In different ways, both were found guilty of misdeeds, which, even to an unpracticed eye, looked like they involved Trump.

Cohen’s attorney said as much as his client struck a plea deal with prosecutors, which could end up with Cohen serving up to five years in prison.

The court decision on Manafort did not implicate Trump in so many words, but it seemed logical to contend that our current president, the worst in history, had conspired with Manafort to commit various violations.

What I have written above is what you would have seen had you read any on-line newspaper late yesterday or this morning. So, why repeat it here?

For me, it is two things. First, I always feel better if I share my thoughts and feeling better is a main purpose of this blog. Second, it is to share my sense of the implications of two legal decisions, far removed as I am from the seat of action in the East, for our sitting president, as well as the country. So, here goes:

• Rather than having a president who continues to defy justice and ethical behavior, we should have one who lives up to the expectations cited recently by Bill McRaven, the retired military veteran who managed the raid by U.S. troops that killed Osama Bin Laden. Here is what McRaven said:

“Like most Americans, I had hoped that, when you (Trump) became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.

“A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.

“Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.”

• It won’t be long before Trump joins Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton who came under severe criticism while they held the nation’s highest political office. Nixon resigned under pressure; Clinton endured an impeachment trial in Congress. Either of these could encompass Trump.
• It won’t take long for Trump to blame someone else for his misdeeds. In fact, he almost immediately dodged, bobbed and weaved, which, if you think about it for a moment, involve three different skills – and Trump exemplifies each. That’s what he always does – shift blame. Of course, I guess if he were to admit misdeeds, he’d be out of office.
• As all of us go through this kind of travesty, the involvement takes away what should be pleasure in seeing a U.S. economy that continues to percolate along and, today, could set a milestone as longest standing of any recovery. If Trump were smarter – and he is clearly not the smartest person in the room as he always contends – he would take solace in economic growth. Instead, he aggravates it most every day with continuing threats of more tariffs, as well as off-the-cuff comments that roil the stock market.

So, in summary, I believe we are watching the beginning of the end of the Trump Administration. For my belief, cannot come too soon.

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, one of three departments I run with a free hand, is open again.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers: “One of the more remarkable media campaigns of recent times is the current attempt to persuade Americans that the economy is worse than it seems. Every day our competitors are filled with columns, editorials and news analyses asserting that tax reform has failed, wages aren’t rising, investment is falling, and growth is an illusion. We’re reminded of the old Chico Marx line, ‘Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?’ Apparently, Americans are believing their own eyes.

“The National Federation of Independent Business reports that its small business optimism index climbed in July to the second highest level in its 45-year history. At 107.9, the index is within 0.1 point of its July 1983 record. The July survey also set new highs for owners reporting current job openings or plans to create jobs. The biggest problem in the survey is that 37% of owners say they had job openings they couldn’t fill. Meanwhile, the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank’s wage growth tracker moved up to 3.3% in July on an annual basis.

“None of this guarantees future prosperity, and the economy needs years of growth to make up for the 2 per cent malaise of the Obama era. But Americans are smart enough to know a better economy when they see one.

Comment: Good points. The economy is percolating along, which is good for all Americans, especially in regard to recovery from the Obama years. But, as the Journal writes, “none of this guarantees future prosperity.”

From Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post:  “Peril is coming from all sides, apparently. President Trump’s attacks on the media are stirring people to heckle and even threaten the ‘fake news’ media.

“And now comes this from Todd S. Purdum in The Atlantic: ‘Jim Acosta’s Dangerous Brand of Performance Journalism.’ He argues that Acosta, CNN’s high-profile chief White House correspondent, is too much show and not enough tell: ‘The last thing Donald Trump — or the press, or the public —  needs is another convenient villain in the performative arena of the long-running reality show that is his administration.’ Acosta’s broadside blurs the line between reporting and performance — between work and war — at a time when journalists have a greater obligation than ever to demonstrate that what they do is real, and matters — and is not just part of the passing show.”

Comment: Wemple gets it right about Acosta who has made himself an easy target for Trump’s charges about media bias. My view is that most reporters and editors try to do the right thing in their work, no matter what Trump says about “fake news” – and I still wonder what the term means — probably just that Trump disagrees with what is being reported.

From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal:  “After GOP state Sen. Troy Balderson’s narrow victory in the special election for Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, Republicans understand what a 23-year-old war correspondent named Winston Churchill meant when he wrote, ‘Nothing in life is as exhilarating as to be shot at without result.’

“While Republicans can’t mount this gigantic an effort in every race this fall, neither can Democrats, who were left claiming a moral victory for coming very close to taking an open Republican seat. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.”

Comment: Rove is an excellent commentator on election prospects, though, of course, he proceeds from a position on the right.

From Michael Gerson writing in The Atlantic magazine:  “One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians.

“This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

“Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership.

“Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.”

Comment: With Gerson, I have no idea why evangelicals stick with Trump, given his political stances and his many failures of decorum and salacious tweets. Unbelievable! I say that evangelicals should stick with their roots in the Christian faith and remain out of the fray of current politics.    

From the Washington Post: “Constant, relentless, shameless lying is not ancillary to the Trump administration. It is not a sideshow; it’s the main event. We have become inured to the fact that the president of the United States and his aides and associates simply cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.

“Trump’s acid-tongued Twitter feed and his public remarks are gushers of lies, falsehoods and exaggerations. As of Aug. 1, The Post’s indefatigable Fact Checker column had counted a staggering 4,229 false or misleading claims by the president since he took office.

“The president has personally attacked at least 487 people, companies or institutions on social media since launching his campaign three summers ago, according to a running tally by the New York Times.”

Comment: Numbers matter! More than 4,200 lies or misleading claims. Attacking more than 480 people. That’s Trump. Unethical and untrustworthy.

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 couple of my friends the other day expressed concern about responding to an e-mail request for financial support because they didn’t want to end up being on a supporters’ lists and remain there.

I understand their position. But, for me, no problem.

Consider me an e-mail junkie.

If you receive a message and don’t want to deal with it or even read it, just junk it. All it takes is one key stroke.

Use of e-mail is one of the most reliable communication methods for me. At least by receiving messages, I can make the decision about whether I want to review the information or not.

I remember the first time I started using e-mail, which, today, strikes most of us a foregone conclusion.

It was when I was a private sector lobbyist and represented Providence Health & Services, one of Oregon’s major health care companies, with eight hospitals spread throughout the state, a major health insurer and a number of special programs, including one for disabled children and another for senior adults.

Before the advent of e-mail, I used to spend time accumulating paper and sending the information by snail mail to my main contact at Providence, then expect that person to send information on to others who needed to react in a complex organization. If speed was needed, which often is the case in the push and pull of legislation at the Capitol, I would resort to faxing.

Time-consuming! Tough to get a response, not to mention many responses in any type of usable order.

With e-mail, I was able to send information directly to multiple places at once at Providence, including with attachments. Early on, attachments sometimes didn’t translate between and among types of on-line systems. But before long, faxing by a separate machine was out the window.

If, for example, I needed comments on a piece of legislation from a variety of perspectives at Providence, I was able to ask for them via one-mail. Then the respondents could respond individually. Often, I was able to get responses in time to use the information in testimony I would provide to legislative committees on behalf of Providence.

Now, I know it can be cumbersome to deal with e-mail messages from so many sources that want financial contributions, so I have no difficulty with my friends’ hesitancy. For me, though, I’d rather have all the information and decide what to do with it than not to have it in the first place.

Just a personal reflection.

One more memory. When I began working in Congress in the office of Oregon U.S. Representative Les AuCoin, we were the first office on the Hill to use a Wang word processing system. Ahead of the curve I would say.

Imagine my glee when I learned that, in order to strike out a mistake in a letter, all I had to do was hit a key. Then, the words and the spelling would be right.

Isn’t technology great? Most of the time, I say. So, forgive me as I stop writing this post and get back to dealing with my e-mail traffic.

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.

For this blog, I am tempted just to reprint a column by Michael Gerson that appeared in the Washington Post this weekend. But, instead, I will reprint excerpts from the piece because it does one of the best jobs I have seen of painting problems with Donald Trump, the celebrity president.

Gerson concludes his column with these three sentences:

“Will the republic survive all this? Of course it will. But it won’t be the same.”

So, here are the excerpts which caught my attention in a continuing attempt by many commentators to describe this worst of all U.S. presidents:

Excerpt #1: “But there is one factor in our politics that the founders could not have predicted: the debilitating infection of celebrity culture.

“Were Washington to be resurrected, it would be difficult to explain how history’s most powerful nation, after surviving civil war and global conflict, turned for leadership to a celebrity known for abusing other celebrities on television. It is the single strangest development in American history. And we have only begun to process its consequences.”

Excerpt #2: “Fame usually has some rough relationship to accomplishment. Celebrity results from mastering the latest technologies of self-exposure. Ingrid Bergman was famous. Kim Kardashian is a celebrity. Franklin D. Roosevelt was famous. Donald Trump is . . . not in the same category.

“Within its proper bounds — confined to stunts on a desert island or in a fake boardroom — the ethos of reality television is relatively harmless. Transposed to the highest level of politics, it is deeply damaging.”

Excerpt #3: “This is not only a matter of preferring a certain style of politics . The problem is a defect of spirit. The founders generally believed that the survival and success of a republic required leaders and citizens with certain virtues: moderation, self-restraint and concern for the common good. They were convinced that respect for a moral order made ordered liberty possible.

“The culture of celebrity is the complete negation of this approach to politics. It represents a kind of corrupt, decaying capitalism in which wealth is measured in exposure. It elevates appearance over accomplishment. Because rivalries and feuds are essential to the story line, it encourages theatrical bitterness. Instead of pursuing a policy vision, the first calling of the celebrity is to maintain a brand.”

Excerpt #4: “Is the skill set of the celebrity suited to the reality of governing? On the evidence, not really. Our celebrity president, as on North Korea, is prone to take credit for nonexistent accomplishments. As on the border wall and the travel ban, he deals in absurd symbols rather than realistic policies. As on Russia policy, he is easily manipulated by praise.”

Excerpt #5: “When a real estate developer attacks an enemy in the tabloids, it is a public-relations spectacle. When the president of the United States targets and harms a citizen without due process, it is oppression.

“But the broader influence of celebrity culture on politics is to transform citizens into spectators. In his book “How Democracy Ends,” David Runciman warns of a political system in which “the people are simply watching a performance in which their role is to give or withhold their applause at the appropriate moments. In this case, democracy becomes ‘an elaborate show, needing ever more characterful performers to hold the public’s attention.’

“And those villains are defined as anyone who opposes or obstructs the president, including the press, the courts and federal law enforcement. Trump’s stump speeches are not a call to arms against want; they are a call to oppose his enemies. This is not the agenda of a movement; it is the agenda of a cult.”

Gerson is on point again and I appreciate the chance to underline his trenchant analysis.

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.

President Donald Trump is mostly show, with little tell. He functions like a showman, someone who continues to preside over a reality TV show.

Columnist Gary Abernathy made this point today in a piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal.

“With Trump,” Abernathy write, “we get the cheesy, the shocking and sometimes the uncomfortable — just like a good drive-in movie. Trump never seems to study the script or know his part, at least as defined by those previously cast as the ‘President of the United States.’ His riffing and ad-libbing are endless sources of dismay from Democrats, the media and, quite often, Republicans. But drive-in movies never depended on good scripts.”

But, Trump, true to his showman form, loves the display.

“…Trump appeals to Americans,” Abernathy continues, “who were never invited onto the red carpet, a snub that was due in part to their lack of formal training in political theater. His fans are particularly offensive to highbrow critics.”

Trump benefits from the fact that establishment political figures in Washington, D.C. have been engaged in performances that seemed designed for their own edification, not the public’s benefit from good government. The audience – you and me – often seemed to be taken for granted or ignored outright.

That was one of the main factors that led to Trump’s presidential election win.

Even today, dismayed by the success of Trunp’s performance, the old guard’s faithful political ushers prowl the aisles, shaking Trump supporters by the shoulders and insisting they ‘wake up’ and give up on Trump.

To Trump, Abernathy writes, “invitation-only black-tie premieres are out; Friday nights at the drive-in are in.”

The drive=in metaphor may not resonate today because, to put a point on it, there aren’t many anymore. Still, whatever the comparison, the notion that Trump is a performance artist sticks.

Those who follow him appear to do so precisely because he defies most expressions of the “political order,” thus appealing to their perspective that “normal” political figures acted for their own aggrandizement. So, we Trump, the showman.

For me, the problem is that Trump’s performance wears thin because, in fact, it is thin.  And the country continues to be at risk.

To make this point, let me quote from comments from William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, who was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 and who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

“Like most Americans, McRaven wrote, “ I had hoped that when you (Trump) became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.

“A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.”

Not Trump.

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 was about 10 years ago now that I made a decision to become independent politically – it is called “unaffiliated” now – which means that I would be neither a Republican or a Democrat.

At the time, I took this action for at least a couple reasons.

• One was that, as a lobbyist, I felt it was better expressly not to identify with either party because I had “to work the middle,” not just those affiliated with one party or the other, at the Capitol in Salem.  Many policy issues are decided in that space – the middle.

• A second reason, frankly, was that I was tired being identified with either party since “party politics” is not my first love. I also disliked being identified with the excesses of either the Ds or the Rs.

All of this came to my mind this morning when I read a column in the Wall Street Journal by Joseph Epstein, author of “The Ideal of Culture and Other Essays” and the forthcoming “Charm: The Elusive Enchantment” to be published in October.

This was the headline:

Don’t Invite Me to a Party If It’s a Political One

A good friend of mine says he ‘hates’ Paul Ryan. Hates! What motivates such an unseemly passion?

And here is more from Epstein:

“The other day, sorting through my always ample junk mail—pleas for donations to save the armadillo, to conquer dandruff, to fight elegance—I noted an envelope from the Illinois Republican Party. The GOP wanted to know if I intended to register as a Republican in the coming election, and, while we were at it, wanted to know my age, income, whether I owned my residence, and other information that was not any of its business.

“Without a moment’s reflection, I threw this bit of mail, too, into the garbage. Even though I haven’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1976, I have never considered myself, nor ever shall, a locked-in member of a political party. In 2016, I could not bring myself to vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and with every passing day I feel better about that abstention.”

With Epstein, I admit that it is difficult, given America’s history, to imagine the country functioning without political parties. But it is equally difficult to imagine, as Epstein put it, “political truth and America’s larger interests lying chiefly with either Republicans or Democrats. To sign on with one or the other is to give away too much in independence of thought, feeling, integrity.”

Epstein writes, “If you have signed on as a Democrat in our day, for example, you have to retain a certain sympathy for, among others, Bernie Sanders, Robert Menendez and Maxine Waters, or at any rate you cannot come out strongly against them.”

Yet, he adds, “if you have signed on as a lifetime Republican, you are stuck with the Freedom Caucus, John Bolton and Ted Cruz. One party lashes you to the moral certainty of Elizabeth Warren, the other to the overconfidence of John Kasich, who, if pressed, will tell you that as governor he wiped out Islamic State in Ohio.”

Point made.

I disliked – read, “hated” – to be identified with either party, given that parties have become haters…one sides hates the other which makes it almost impossible to find the mart middle ground.

Party politics, Epstein continues, “also conditions you in ways that often do not make much sense. A good friend of mine—a lifelong Democrat, though one flexible enough to have been against President Obama’s Iran deal—told me not long ago that he hates Paul Ryan. Hates! I didn’t press him for his reasons. But Mr. Ryan, the best representative both personally and ideationally of intelligent Republicanism, seems, with such a large pool to choose from, a strange man to hate. Only membership in a political party could motivate such unseemly passion.”

I agree, again.

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has faced an almost impossible job in the nation’s Capitol – herding cats among Republicans, facing off against Democrats (such as Representative Nancy Pelosi who appears to hate Ryan), and contending with the worst president in U.S. history, Republican Donald Trump.

All of this has made it impossible, unfortunately, for Ryan to show the policy chops that made him a solid figure in the U.S. House, not to mention a candidate for vice president.

To avoid the hate of both sides, Epstein says chose to be an independent.

And, as he concludes: “Easy enough to understand why those thoroughly committed to one or another of our political parties, heavily invested emotionally in them, would look down on someone who declares himself an independent, content to sit away from the struggle far off in the bleachers.

“My own feeling, though, is that the view of the game is better and more amusing from up there, and the air a lot cleaner.”

So, from my own spot above the “hate game” — some no doubt would call them the “cheap seats” or the “peanut gallery” — I agree.

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.

Foe me, the question in the headline arose in response to a Washington Post piece about the fact that, yes, more and more legislators are doing just that – turning their back on the will of the people expressed at the polls..

Is it wise to do so? Well, the answer depends on the specific, individual circumstances in various states.

In Oregon, the answer is probably not a wise move in general, but, during my career as a lobbyist, I was involved in one of the major cases where legislators asked voters to decide an issue a second time.

This was a controversial one – the voter-backed initiative to allow physician-assisted suicide in Oregon back in 1994. Oregon was the first state to allow the practice, though the proposed law passed at the polls by only a 51 to 49 per cent margin.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the company where I was a partner ran the opposition campaign and I was heavily involved in what eventually was an unsuccessful effort NOT to allow physician-assisted suicide in Oregon.

So, to put it specifically, I have a bias in what I am writing here, given my role in the ballot measure campaign.

In 1994, the measure passed only by a couple percentage points, so legislators agreed to send it out to the people again, which some said was a violation of the “will of the people.”

As I remember it, legislators took the action for at least two basic reasons:

• The margin was so close.
• And, assisted suicide was a very controversial procedure that, up to that time, was not legal anywhere in the country,

In November 1997, in the second time around, voters expressed a clear preference, passing the measure by a 60-40 margin.

Here’s the way the Washington Post described the national situation today:

“The strategy of putting policy questions directly to voters has become more popular in recent years. In 2016, some 76 initiatives appeared on ballots across the country. That’s the highest number in a decade.”

NOTE; In Oregon, initiatives, by contrast to the national scene, have been a way of political for more than 20 years.

“So have attacks on the results. In the past two years alone, legislators have filed more than 100 bills across 24 states aimed at reversing ballot measures, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which focuses on advancing progressive priorities through ballot initiatives.”

To close the loop in Oregon, let me recite one last development. After passage of assisted suicide by a landslide in 1997, I went to the Capitol on behalf of my client, Providence Health System, to contend that, in what passed at the polls, the “immunities clause” was poorly drafted.

The “immunities clause” we wanted to revise would better allow, for reasons of ethics and conscience, an organization to avoid becoming involved in assisted suicide. In this case, Providence, which was and is a health care provider affiliated with the Catholic Church, wanted to get out from under operating with a law it considered unethical.

With help from one of the best legislators at the Capitol, Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, we crafted language that allowed Providence and others to avoid assisted suicide if they chose to do so on ethical grounds. This pertained to assisted suicide:

• On the grounds of property it owned.
• By employees who worked for Providence.
• By contractors for Providence “within the course and scope of their contract.”

In return, Providence and others had to agree out to refer patients out to reputable assisted suicide resources if patients wanted such services.

Given the political reality that the “people had spoken,: it was an excellent compromise, though referral was hard for Providence to swallow because it felt it was unethical to refer out for such a practice. Still, with Senator Bryant’s credibility, we were able to usher the protections toward final passage and they remain in law today.

If there a moral to this story? Probably not. Except to say that, in Oregon’s specific circumstance back in the mid to late 1990s, legislators recognized the will of the people, but took steps to improve on what had passed at the polls

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 one of my previous blogs, I wrote about a lesson I learned from one of my bosses years ago. It was this: Every day, try to thank someone for doing something that helped you.

Just a bit of etiquette? Yes. But a good one.

Then, last week, I read a post from a professor at Drexel University. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal under the headline, “The Lost Art of the Apology Letter.”

The piece began this way:

“’Dear Mr. and Mrs. DiGioia,’ ,the letter begins. ‘We received a phone call from Sachs Dress Shop in New Haven today inquiring about the ‘duns’ we mailed to you. We immediately investigated the matter, and found, to our extreme chagrin, that $2 payment which you had made was mis-posted on our records to some one else’s account. This explanation is not intended as an excuse, for there can be no excuse for such errors, even though they do occur due to the tens of thousands of accounts which we handle.’”

The writer went on to say that such apology letters tend to be few and far between these days. She labeled the rarity the “disappearance of civility.”

I could add that, beyond thanks you and apology letters, civility is often missing from politics in America these days. That is no doubt due, in large part, to the most uncivil of presidents in our history, Donald Trump.

That is why one of my favorite quotes is attributed to General Colin Powell when he decided, a few years ago, not to run for president. Then he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.” Just imagine what he would say today!

The apology letter advocate when on to say that she bemoaned “the growing tendency toward thoughtless or rude behavior. Even seemingly well-brought-up people these days fail to write thank-you notes (or even emails) in response to gifts. They neglect to RSVP to invitations to parties (or even weddings). They act nasty on-line (or even in person) toward people who happen to disagree.”

Back to the lesson I learned some years ago. Try to say thank you to someone every day and you’ll be the better 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.

This is one three departments I run. The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

I am the director of these three departments with an absolute free hand to decide when they are open and, if they are, what they will consider. Just call me a dictator.

So, Bits and Pieces is open again.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS GOLF TWOSOME?

In the recent British Open – knowledgeable golfers, especially those from across the pond, call this “The Open” – there was an incredible twosome, at least by name. Two letter names, to boot.

One was Kevin Na. The other was Beyong An.

So, the twosome was Na and An. Not hard to pronounce.

Why do I notice stuff like this? Well, the answer is too much time on my hands in retirement.

“ROARING AND BROODING”

The Washington Post labeled Trump with this phrase about a week ago.. And that is cause for concern for all Americans.

Who knows what Trump will do when he broods? In this case, the worst act was to call out none other than pro basketball player LeBron James because, in a TV interview, James didn’t support Trump.

I say, who cares? Doesn’t Trump have better stuff to do than to rail against a basketball player?  I would hope so.

One just has to hope that Trump won’t do something really bad as he broods.

WANT TO BE TRUMP’S LAWYER?

Speaking of an impossible task, consider this one. Almost every time Trump bangs out another tweet, he gives his counsel a new, steep hill to climb. This time, Trump, perhaps without thinking about what he was doing – which isn’t unusual – admitted that his son had met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, then almost admitted that he knew about the meeting.

If I was Trump’s lawyer – perish the thought! – I would quit. Can’t represent someone who thinks he is his own best lawyer, which amounts to “having an idiot for a client.”

A GREAT DECISION BY THE OREGON GOLF ASSOCIATION!

I just returned from a afternoon-long stint as an official for a junior golf tournament at Mallard Creek in Lebanon, Oregon. The news here is that the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) displayed its usual good sense by allowing a handicapped junior golf to ride in a golf cart in order to be able to play in the event.

Having volunteered for the OGA for a number of years, I have found the leaders and staff there to be well-organized and smart, especially when it comes issues like treating handicapped persons with respect and sensibility.

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 have been trying for some time to come up with a short, apt description of President Donald Trump. Tough because there are so many options.

Some of them dominate the columns of commentators from the left and the right and in-between. For me, none of them do a perfect job of capturing the actions and vicissitudes of the most disagreeable president in U.S. history.

I even wonder if we will be able to survive his four-year term in office, must less a second term if he were to win one.

Thus, a story in the Wall Street Journal caught my attention this morning. It was about the life of mid-20th-century England’s most raffishly bohemian writer, Julian MacLaren-Ross.

His career in flummery and flimflam was launched when he left reform school at age 14 to work as a Coney Island pitchman, then joined Dr. W.H. Long’s Big Indian and Medicine Show.

“The bigger the lies he told, the more avidly people seemed to embrace them. Alas, such brazen trumpery succeeds even now.”

To me, that sounds a lot like Trump who functions with “flummery and flimflam” more like the host of a bogus reality TV show than a world leader.

After trying and failing for months to describe Trump, here is my one-sentence description:

Trump lives in a vacuous reality he creates for himself, regardless of facts or truth, thus believing that he himself is the master of all, and anyone who disagrees with him is a follower of fake news worthy of only disdain and criticism.

This sentence includes four key characteristics of Trump:

• He creates his own make-believe reality.
• He doesn’t care about facts or truth.
• He is the master of all, at the center of his own self-created universe.
• Anyone who disagrees with him is wrong and worthy of biting criticism.

Now, to all of this, some may want to add that the America’s economy is percolating along nicely under Trump. True – and that’s good news for all of us.

But the news pages of the Wall Street Journal put it this way this morning as reporters assessed coming elections:

“Republicans have gotten little political traction from their tax cuts, as other economic changes — rising gas prices and blowback from Trump’s tariffs — have offset any financial lift. Instead, as a three-month sprint to November begins, Republicans are focusing on the fear of ‘open borders,’ tax increases, the MS-13 gang, and Pelosi (former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco, who continues to lead Democrats) back in charge, overseeing a liberal caucus.”

Expect more flummery and flimflam from Trump on the months ahead.