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 three departments I run with a completely free hand to do what needs to be done.  No one tells me what to do or what to include.  So, I am not just a director — I am a dictator.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial on a one-party (Democrat) state – New York: “The two Democrats (U.S. Senator Kristin Gillibrand and Governor Andrew Cuomo) can get away withdisdain for democracy because New York is increasingly a one-party state in which Republicans can’t win statewide. This is partly a result of a GOP majority in the state Senate that has failed to offer much of an alternative to liberal governance. But even that restraint in Albany is likely to vanish this year as Democrats expect to control every branch of government. Politicians aren’t more accountable when they face no significant opposition.”

Comment: In some ways, this sounds like a bit like Oregon where Democrats control almost everything. There is one Republican statewide officer holder, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson. And Republicans haven’t won the governorship for more than 35 years, dating back to the governor for whom I worked – Vic Atiyeh.

From Hugh Hewitt in the Washington Post: “The framers intended political disputes to be settled in and by Congress and the president — elected officials who could be replaced. Now, perhaps — hopefully — a new era of judicial modesty is opening. The court should retreat from absurdly insisting on creating a perfect society with measured and judicially mandated outcomes, ‘scientific’ precision, balancing tests and invented doctrines, all administered by federal judges. The justices should stop ‘judicializing’ politics and insist that, if the political branches do not resolve a controversy, that controversy will not be resolved.

“The court should neither ‘hurry up’ nor obstruct social change. It should not try to redirect or dam the mighty river ‘Culture,’ and it should cease trying to vacuum away the delicate compromises local, state and national legislators make between the deeply felt religious beliefs of a vast and diverse people. Rather, it should read closely the laws that Congress passes, hold them up to the Constitution’s guarantees and refuse the efforts of elected officials to punt power to bureaucracies.”

Comment: Hewitt makes a good case for a conservative court – one that, as put by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robers, serves as an umpire, not one of the players.

From Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post: “Democrats have seized on recent comments by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) in a round of media interviews after the Treasury Department reported that the federal budget deficit increased 17 per cent year over year, to $779 billion in fiscal 2018.

“’It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem,’ McConnell told Bloomberg News on October 16 when asked about the deficit announcement. ‘It’s a bi-partisan problem: Unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future.”

“He added that by ‘entitlement reform,’ he was ‘talking about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.’

“Cue the immediate outrage from the left.

“’If Republicans retain the Senate they will do everything they can to take away families’ health care and raise their costs,’ Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said in a statement. ‘Americans should take Senator McConnell at his word.’

“Okay, these are the usual kind of scare tactics used by politicians on both sides to warn of looming program cuts if the other side’s proposals are adopted. Not just ‘cuts,’ but actual elimination of three popular programs.

“That’s not what McConnell said. In fact, he did not even say the Republicans hoped to cut those programs. He said changes would happen only if both parties worked together to overhaul the programs, which are under financial stress because of the retirement of the baby-boom generation.”

Comment: This is another case of Democrats being Democrats. They cannot seem to understand that it is possible that, even though Republicans are in charge, they might want to work Democrats on consensus solutions.

From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal: “The Democrats reduced all the complexities of a Supreme Court nomination to mandatory expressions of sympathy for a human tragedy. For many Americans, as summarized on the Senate floor by Senator Susan Collins, the Democratic effort to force her and the rest of the country into making this impossible Sophie’s Choice was just too much. Due process still matters.

“The left’s reductionist Kavanaugh strategy enraged and energized a sleepy Republican electorate, whose interest in the midterms now effectively matches the Democrats.’”

Comment: We’ll see in a week or so, but the Democrats’ strategy on Kavanaugh, as if there was a strategy, not just Democrats trying to be quotable, may still come back to haunt them.

From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “Everyone running for office should admit things have gotten too hot, too divided. Then they should try to cool the atmosphere. Next Tuesday will mark one week before the election. Candidates should devote the day to something different. It would be good to see every one give a speech or statement containing their most generous definition of the aims and meaning of the opposing party. A Democratic nominee might say, ‘Whether they always succeed or not, Republicans do want to protect the liberties that have allowed this nation become the miracle of the world.’ A Republican might say, ‘At its best and most sincere, the Democratic Party hopes to help those in peril, and to soften disparities of wealth and opportunity.’”

Comment: Great idea, Peggy Noonan. If candidates on both sides would deign to say nice things about the opponent – not just negative broadsides – we’d be ahead in this country. Fat chance! I know it won’t happen, but, if it did, I’d be interested in all the comments.