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.

You can tell I have too much time on my hands because I have enough of it – time, that is — to write a blog on this subject.

But, the golf phrases listed below have been on my mind lately and, as you will see, some come from real golfers and real TV golf commentators — and a few come from me. After all, I, too, am a golf expert, at least in my own mind.

• If he would have hit it harder, it would have gone farther.

I remember the time I heard this phrase uttered by a commentator. Stop for a moment and think about it. Stands to reason, doesn’t it! Someone got paid big bucks to say the words. So why not pay me big bucks to utter such obvious notions?

• Callaway pays Mickelson and many others to play their golf clubs and golf balls; I pay Callaway to do the same.

I am the author of these semi-famous words. Why, given how much I have done for Callaway, doesn’t the company invest in me? Who knows?

• Better than most! What do those three words really mean?

As we have just passed the annual Players golf tournament in Ponte Vedra, Florida, we have been reminded again and again about those three words.

They were uttered by golf commentator and former player Gary Koch several years ago as he watched Tiger Woods hole a very long putt on the iconic 17^th hole at the TPC Sawgrass course.

As the putt trailed toward the hole, Koch said the words, “Better than most.”

Think about it. What do those words really mean and are they worthy of such high status? Perhaps not, though I add that I like Koch as a TV commentator. He has an understated way of calling a golf tournament, adding to the action without distracting from it.

• Jack Nicklaus, Dustin Johnson and I all play fades.

This is a quote from me – and, surprisingly, it is true.  I have have no particular ability to hit a draw on command.  However, when it comes to Nicklaus and Johnson, they both hit their fades farther than I do, which, I guess, is not surprising, given my advanced age.  Plus, the longer I play the shorter the distance.

• He has a lot of green to work with.

If you watch golf on TV, you are likely to hear this phrase multiple times. A pro player hits a shot long and there is a bit of distance between where his golf ball lies and the pin. So, the commentator intones, “he has a lot of green to work with.”

Where did the phrase originate? Work with? What does that mean? Who knows?

• I’ve just got to stay patient.

You don’t have to listen and watch much golf on TV before you hear this phrase. I’d love for someone to define the word patience as we hear it repeatedly.

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.

Pretty far!

Off the political spectrum, in fact!

Political columnist, Peggy Noonan, made this point in a piece she wrote recently for the Wall Street Journal.

“A generation after President Bill Clinton declared that the ‘era of big government is over, Democrats,’ Democrats are engaged in an intra-party fight over how aggressively to expand the government’s reach into the lives of everyday people.

“Free college, government-backed health care and subsidy checks for newborns, all considered politically untenable ideas during the 2016 presidential campaign, are among the proposals being floated by top candidates in the crowded 2020 presidential primary field.

“The advocates for a larger government role are among the party’s savviest social-media users, including Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which has provided a megaphone for their views.

“The wing of the party that advocates more incremental change is resisting what it sees as moving too far, and too fast, toward a bigger government role—something that already is being labeled ‘socialism’ by the Republican opponent-in-waiting, President Donald Trump.”

As far left as these proposals are, no one can top Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is a major author of some of the notions.

And, in the interest of fairness, far right folks, including President Donald Trump — if he belongs on the right and no on his own weird stance as nowhere other this bloated ego – are no better than the lefties. Neither side has the country’s best interests are heart.

The push to the left is coming in part from a vocal group of freshman lawmakers, including Ocasio-Cortez, who ran in Democrat strongholds vowing to shake up the party hierarchy and push for change on such issues as climate and health care.

Not only that. Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding about public policy that, in effect, makes her like Donald Trump. Neither knows what they’re doing when it comes to making decisions about government, either in terms of an appropriate role or the details of individual policies.

Ocasio-Cortez made this abundantly clear when she applauded Amazon’s decision not to move forward on a second headquarters location in the New York area. Good, she said, and now it would be possible to spend the $3 billion that would be saved on other left-learning programs.

Of course, almost everyone else knew that there was not $3 billion to be spent. That was the amount Amazon was scheduled to receive then gave up, in tax incentives. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t know about the easy-to-see distinction.

Or, as a governor I worked for a number of years ago would have said: “She doesn’t know beans from buckshot.”

When I queried a friend – he is an admitted and avowed liberal — about Ocasio-Cortez, he said she did not represent the true Democrat party. Well, if not, then she is getting a lot of publicity as one apparent leader of the left.

Former Vice President Joe Biden told would-be donors recently that he often faces criticism from the “new left,” but claimed he has the “most progressive record” of anyone trying to get into the 2020 presidential election field.

One of his would-be rivals, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, has called the policies outlined in the Green New Deal—a climate change platform advocated by Ocasio-Cortez—as “aspirations.”

Noonan says what she calls “an ideological debate” could re-define the Democrat Party after more than two decades of dominance by supporters of the Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Noonan continues: “The Democrat fight is being fueled by pent-up frustration from a new generation of leaders, whose political outlooks were largely formed in the aftermaths of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the economic meltdown at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency.

“It is being animated by a liberal activist base that has grown independent of the party establishment. The ultimate arbiter in the struggle will be a Democrat primary electorate that reflects the party’s emerging power centers: Millennials and minorities.”

Still, looming over the intra-party debate is the question of how best to beat Trump. Former Delaware Governor Jack Markell, an ally of Biden and several governors considering entering the race, said “the only way that Trump can win is if the D nominee is too far to the left.”

Asked his definition of “too far left,” Markell said it is “the giving-everything-away-for-free lane.”

So, the Ds favor increasing government largesse? Yes. They have no problem spending other people’s money.

I hope some kind of centrist – Republican, Democrat, third-party, I don’t care – emerges who can appeal to voters opposed to either far left or far right ideas that are designed more to attract certain kinds of voters than to produce good solutions.

That’s the only way Trump can lose his re-election bid, as well as the only way Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk can be relegated to where they belong, which is on the sidelines.

Give me a person with character, knowledge, experience and credibility in the Oval Office.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The headline trumpets a key question as we head toward the 2020 presidential election. Are Donald Trump for the Republicans, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the Democrats standard-bearers for both parties.

I hope not.

For they deserve each other, even if some on both sides dispute the notion that they are standard-bearers because, if nothing else, standard-bearers have to have standards. Neither does.

First, each is nuts, without the first idea of what it means to govern with skill and diplomacy – from their posts on the far right for Trump and the far left for Ocasio-Cortez.

Can Trump be placed on any political spectrum, including the far right? Perhaps not, and, in this country, real conservatives would no doubt disavow Trump as illustrative of someone who wears the mantle of Republican. He defies explanation. Frankly, so does Ocasio-Cortez for Democrats on the left.

Second, solid, upstanding character is not an issue for either Trump or Ocasio-Cortez. They don’t have much, if any.

Third, lying comes naturally to each, so much so that they believe, often rightly in this day of social media “news,” that lying covers up a host of stupid, near-illegal actions.

Fourth, each craves media publicity. There is no higher calling thatn to get your names in newspapers or on-air. And, reporters and editors succumb to their entreaties, which is not good news for Americans who would benefit from a focus on “real news,” not Trump tweets or Ocasio-Cortez media blitzes.

A letter writer to the Wall Street Journal got it right this other day with this:

“In ‘Socialism? Yes, Be Afraid’ in his Wonder Land column on March 14, Daniel Henninger compares Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ideas to Jack Handey’s ‘Deep Thoughts’ bits on Saturday Night Live.

“Right comedy show, wrong character. Ocasio-Cortez is more like Gilda Radner’s Roseanne Roseannadanna or Emily Litella, always making an internally logical, if very irreverent argument, but one based on an intellectually wacky or unfounded premise (see Radner’s classic ‘Saving Soviet Jewelry’ as an example).

“The problem is no one else in the Democrat Party has either the common sense or courage of Radner’s skit partners, who leaned over to whisper in her ear, mid-rant, that her premise was nuts, the earnestness of her presentation notwithstanding. Gilda always gave us the sheepish look with a chagrined ‘Never mind!’ Ocasio-Cortez, instead, is too self-enchanted to ever admit her arguments might need a re-think.”

Then, consider Trump.

He never expected to be president, seeming to believe that campaigning was just an infomercial for his Trump brand. He figured it would be more publicity for him and nothing else mattered, because he values publicity over anything.

Trouble is, he won. And we all are worse for his victory. He wasn’t prepared for the White House and, in the words of a solid, experienced military veteran who served him, for a time, as head of the U.S. Department of State, he displayed no ability to prepare for anything, much less read anything about the presidency or its current challenges.

Now, I have a friend on the left who makes light of my comment that Ocasio-Cortez could be a standard-bearer for the Ds. He says she is just an after-thought, and to illustrate his point, he holds two fingers together closely to indicate that she is thin and doesn’t matter.

I beg to differ. She gets more air-time and news-space that any other Democrat even as erstwhile D candidates for president in 2020 adopt her costly ideas – free medical care for everyone, free college for everyone, reparations for “the slavery issue,” tear down all buildings and build new ones according to some kind of ill-defined “new green deal.”

No talk about the price for such ideas. And, of course, price doesn’t matter because, for many Democrats, they enjoy spending other people’s money.

So, I believe we can do better than either Trump or Ocasio-Cortez as we look for standard-bearers in both parties. Or, if we find no solid examples in today’s excuse for politics, we could look for a third-party candidate or candidates who can lead us to the smart middle on issues facing this country – all the while demonstrating high character and standards.

Trump and Ocasio-Cortez? No.

Better standard-bearers? Yes.

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 wrote the other day how comforting it was to me to have a seasoned legal pro, William Barr, sitting in the U.S. Attorney General’s chair.

I made that assertion minutes after Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his long-awaited report to the AG.

I could write that sentence again, with confidence, after watching a few days of the to’ing and fro-ing over the Mueller report and the AG’s summary of it.

Many Democrats feel Barr should be required to release the full report even if it violates certain provisions of the order creating the Special Counsel in the first place, or even if it violates long-accepted legal practice, such as not releasing transcripts of grand jury proceedings in order not to incriminate those who might have testified, or even if it jeopardizes ongoing investigations.

None of this matters to many Democrats who believe they, and only they, have the smarts to analyze the full report.

And, if they want to use the report to tarnish President Donald Trump, well, he deserves it given his reprehensible conduct in office.

And, of course, President Donald Trump, to his discredit, continues to do what the Washington Post’s James Hohmann describes in his Daily 202 Column:

“Even when a story is great for him, Trump still has a penchant for over-hyping just how great.

“He’s a billionaire, yet he inflates his wealth. Trump Tower is a tall building, yet he sprinkles in extra floors. He’s tall but overstates his height. Trump got elected president by winning the Electoral College, but, insists, without evidence, that he also would have won the popular vote if millions of undocumented immigrants hadn’t cast ballots illegally.

“When the Islamic State was battered, he said it was eradicated. There are many more examples.”

Back to AG Barr.  He reiterated on Sunday that his “goal and intent” is to release as much of the report as possible. Barr said he’s asked Mueller to help identify information in his report that cannot be released publicly because it’s related to grand jury deliberations or other ongoing investigations that have been referred to other offices.

“As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies,” Barr wrote.

It is important to add that a clause in the document creating the Special Counsel allows the AG to release the full report, with, of course, redactions.

I suspect Barr will do that. But, again, I am very glad he is in the top chair making that and other decisions about what comes next.

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 it comes to seeing and absorbing information, I believe there are three kinds of people in this world:

1. Those who prefer words
2. Those who prefer graphics and pictures
3. Those who prefer charts and graphs

Of course, there are folks who share portions of all of the above.

For me, I prefer words. And, for me, words matter.

Let me provide a few examples.

THE WORD “NEGATIVE:” My concern about this word arrives when, after I have had a blood test at a doctor’s office, I get a call reporting the results. The person on the other end of the phone says results were “negative.”

Say what?

When I hear that word, I often respond, “oh no, now what do I do?”

But, of course, when conveyed in such a manner, the word negative is positive. Get my drift. Nothing is wrong with the test results.

Would be better, I submit, for the response from the doctor’s office, to be something like, “there is nothing wrong based on the test.”

THE WORD “TRANSPARENT:” I cite this because, while I like the word based on its definition, I never know what it means for sure when it is uttered by a political figure.

Usually, it means what the politician wants it to mean.

The dictionary definition of transparent is a bit complicated, as follows:

• Having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen
• Admitting the passage of light through interstices (whatever that last word means)
• So sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous; easily seen through, recognized, or detected

It is possible to see how this word – transparent – could illustrate the importance of open and “transparent” government. But it has come to mean what politicians want it to mean, which is to support their claim that they believe in open government.

Except the reverse is often true for many of them. They want us to know what they want us to know, not the full depth and scope of information about government issues.

So, when I hear the word “transparent” used by politicians, I am skeptical.

THE WORD “LOGISTICS”: As I drove north on I-5 earlier this weekend, I did not just notice a lot of huge trucks; I also noticed that, in many cases, adds on the sides of trucks indicated they were involved in “logistics.”

Who knows what that word means? Trucks used to be called vehicles that hauled stuff. Later, the trucks were called “transportation vehicles.” Today, many carry the moniker “logistics.”

My friends at “dictionary.com” – I consult them regularly – define logistics as this: “The planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of a business or other operation.”

So, I guess the word is appropriate. Just not one I would know how to use in regular communication about the number of big trucks on highways.

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.

Two legislators – Representative Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, and Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton – went on record this week asking Oregon businesses, in turn, to go on record in favor of what kind of tax they wanted to absorb.

Over my years at the Capitol, I lobbied both Nathanson and Hass and found them to be interested in what they considered to be sound policy from their position as centrists, but a little to the left. I know their current request was made with the best of intentions, but I was left with a question.

The request was made in a letter to Oregon Business & Industry (OBI), the new organization that grew out of a merger of sorts between Associated Oregon Industries and the Oregon Business Association.

OBI Executive Sandy McDonough responded appropriately, I felt, when she said the organization she runs would expect government spending control in return for new taxes.

More detail on all of this can be read in various newspapers, but, for now, let me cite an axiom that would animate my lobbying on this issue – if I was still a lobbyist and, thankfully, I am not.

If Oregon businesses are going to accept new taxes, the deal should be part of a political transaction.

In return for supporting for more taxes for business to pay, I submit legislators should commit to taking either of two actions:

1. Commit to getting control of the now out-of-control Public Employee Retirement System. Some will say this is impossible given the contract the State of Oregon has signed with PERS pensioners, a contract upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. [And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am one of those pensioners.]
2. Or, put in place what I call a “results oriented” approach to state government spending. What I mean is that programs should, by law, be required to estimate the results they will achieve and, then, if they don’t achieve those results, be subject to termination. Otherwise, all new taxes produce is more government, with no accountability for performance.

Now, a number of my former colleagues who still work the halls of the State Capitol probably will tell me that the axiom I have summarized above will not work. One of the main reasons is that Democrats are in charge by super-majorities in both the Oregon House and Oregon Senate and, because of their clear control, many want to impose new taxes on a number of payers, including businesses.

So, my lobbyist friends say, business lobbyists should propose how they want to be taxed rather than simply let taxes be imposed by Democrat super-majorities.

Perhaps.

But, in the spirit of good and better government, I say impose the “results orientation” instead of just more government business as usual.

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 big news this afternoon is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has forwarded his long-awaited report to Attorney General William Barr as he was required to do under the regulation that created his position.

Now, just want for various Democrats to do what they have been doing for months since Barr stood for and survived Senate confirmation for his second stint in the top job at the Department of Justice.

There is little doubt but that Barr will withstand the almost-constant demand for release and stick with the regulatory and traditional response to such a report.

Here is what Barr said to the Wall Street Journal this afternoon:

“The attorney general wrote he would consult with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller “to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies.”

Well said!

Many Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for advocating loudly and strongly that Barr violate the law.

Barr should continue to resist Democrat entreaties to violate regulation and accepted legal tradition by releasing the report.

I am glad Barr is serving as attorney general. We need reasonable and experienced officials in top Executive Branch positions. Barr fits the needed description to a “T.”

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 will not be news to anyone who knows me to report that I am a dog lover.

My wife, Nancy, and I have had two – first Hogan, who is in heaven looking down on us, and now Callaway who provides us our every day with love and devotion.

And those to emotions go both ways.

So it was this week that I read a piece by the Associated Press under this headline:

Exhibit explores keen senses, abilities of man’s best friend

It was a story about a major dog-related exhibit that is starting in Los Angeles and moving to other cities.

The AP writer asks this question: Did people domesticate dogs or was it the other way around? And why do these two species seem to think so much alike, act so much alike and get along so well?

He reports that the California Science Center has spent the past five years sniffing out the answers to those and hundreds of other vexing canine questions. It will begin revealing the conclusions Saturday (last Saturday) with an ambitious, if somewhat lighthearted, new exhibition called “Dogs! A Science Tail.”

“It’s really not about just dogs and science,” the museum curator says. “It’s really about how dogs and humans are both social animals. About how dogs and humans have evolved together over thousands of years. And the fact that, because we are both social animals, we’ve learned to work together.”

Most of us have seen dogs around fire hydrants. They do what comes naturally to them. But the new exhibit on dogs reveals this:

“…we just smell pee. A dog can tell what other dog was there, what time they were there, and actually which direction they were going.”

Dogs have an amazing ability to learn information, in part because of the estimated 300 million sensory receptor sites they carry in their noses. That far outnumbers the six million receptors in humans.

These receptors led the exhibit curator to say that, “In a bedroom, dogs can hear a termite scratching on the wall.”

Such skills also provide more riveting benefits. An avalanche rescue dog is able to sniff out a person buried in snow in a minute’s time while its handlers stand there without a clue. Dogs are able to sniff out bombs people would never find until they exploded.

Those who see the L.A. dog exhibit watch canines from around the world help save people from drowning off the coast of Italy, rescue people trapped in collapsed buildings, even track down Kenyan poachers preying on endangered elephants and rhinos.

They also can watch Garmin, a two-year-old golden Labrador retriever who is about to graduate from guide-dog school. He takes blindfolded folks through a maze of obstacles, and when one person hesitated, Garmin pulled gently on his leash as if to say, “Come on, let’s go. I’ve got this.”

But do really love us?

Or, are they just trying to wheedle another treat when they open those big black eyes of theirs and give us that look?

“If you look a dog in the eye, a dog will look back at you and you will produce oxytocin,” says the exhibit official. It is the chemical known as the love hormone because of the feelings it evokes in people.

“And,” the official adds, “the dog will produce oxytocin in his own body from looking back at you. It’s a mutual affection.” A chimp, on the other hand, will just look away.

Back thousands of years, both wolves and people could see the other was pretty good at hunting for food. But did the wolves walk up and offer their help in that endeavor? Or, did people make the first move?

Whoever did, they created an enduring bond.

And, I have been lucky enough to experience that bond twice – first with my good old boy Hogan, and, second, with Callaway who is just getting out of puppy hood.

They both came from the same poodle breeder in Amity, Oregon, and she says that, if you trace the lineage, Hogan is Callaway’s uncle.

Both great dogs – and, more importantly, great friends.

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 the way Washington Post columnist James Hohmann put it in his Daily 202 column as he wrote about U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, the Democrat from Colorado:

“He slammed his head on the table four times when I asked what he thought about other Democrat presidential contenders embracing the idea of expanding the Supreme Court.

“Having seen up close just how cynical and how vicious the tea party guys and the Freedom Caucus guys and Mitch McConnell have been, the last thing I want to do is be those guys. What I want to do is beat these guys so that we can begin to govern again.”

Sounds like a 2020 candidate worth considering, though it is important to cite one fact – Bennet has not declared yet that he is running, though his candidacy seems to be all but a foregone conclusion.

Here are some other notable excerpts from the Hohmann column, with my comments:

• “Court packing, like reparations, has emerged as a bright new dividing line to separate the pragmatists from the ideologues in the Democrat contest. The issue is quickly become a proxy for the larger choice Democrats must confront as they pick a standard bearer for 2020: Will they go with their heads or their hearts?”

Comment: It is very likely that left-wing Democrats – that’s redundant, isn’t it? – will go with their hearts because, based on their various wacko policy notions, they don’t have much head left.

• “Bennet, who says he’s inclined to run for president and will decide in a matter of ‘weeks,’ represents an antidote to the Democrat Party’s leftward lurch. I guess I’m starting to think strongly that we need a voice in this primary that’s willing to make the kind of case that I think that I would make.”

Comment: An antidote to the leftward lurch of many Democrats? Ye

• “Speaking at a house party up the hill from the State House, Bennet made an impassioned plea to 50 Democrats that the party must be more careful to avoid the ‘traps being laid by President Donald Trump. Look, we’ve got to nominate somebody who can beat Donald Trump. That means we have a responsibility not to do ourselves in. I went around in 2016 saying Trump couldn’t win. I was totally wrong.

Comment: Bennet is right again. Given how bad Trump is, the Ds should band together behind someone who can win, not someone who caters to the far left bloc. The risk is that the Ds, by who they nominate (Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Warren ???) will put Trump in the White House again.

• “Bennet said Trump’s not an idiot. Whatever you think of Trump – and I can’t stand the guy myself – he is a marketing genius. He is a savant of some kind when it comes to marketing. And where he sees the weakness, he will exploit it. Trump knows he can’t get elected on his two feet. What he’s trying to do is disqualify the Democrat Party. He looks for opportunities to do that by calling people socialists, by saying Democrats are for open borders, and by saying Democrats are anti-Israel. I think Democrats need to be very strategic in not falling into the traps that Donald Trump is laying for us.”
  

Comment: First, to contend that Trump is not an idiot is saying something! To me, it is a compliment to call Trump an idiot. He is far worse, an opportunist who ran an infomercial to get into the White House with no thought of arriving there, but just with a goal to pump his own brand.

• “Bennet explained why he stood to applaud the president during the State of the Union. When he said we’re never going to be a socialist country, I was the first Democrat out of their chair. I didn’t know this at the time, but Bernie Sanders is sitting right behind me and he’s sitting in his chair scowling while I’m standing up and applauding. The reason I was on my feet is that I’m not going to let him disqualify us that way. I know what he’s trying to do. … It’s not because I’m applauding him. It’s because I want to show that Democrats don’t feel that way. Most Democrats don’t.”

Comment: I hope that Bennet is right when he says “most Democrats don’t want socialism.” Standard bearers for the far left – Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, Warren — illustrate that they favor giving a free hand-out to everyone as they display again the left-wing penchant for spending all they can of other people’s money.

• “Asked about the Medicare-for-all bill that several of his Senate colleagues running for president have co-sponsored, Bennet made the case against the bill both on the substance and the politics. That legislation takes insurance away from 180 million people who get it from their employer, 80 per cent of whom like it. It takes it away from every single union that has collectively bargained for their health-care plan. It takes it away from 20 million people that have Medicare Advantage who love Medicare Advantage.

“We’re making it too easy for the people who don’t want to cover everybody. Donald Trump has been smart enough to figure out that he can agitate seniors about this question because he’s going to say to seniors, ‘Wait a minute, you guys had to wait until you were 65 years old. You spent your whole life paying into it. And now all of America is going to be in the plan with you.’ I have no problem with political slogans, but we have to have a plan for how to address this. … I want to say very clearly: This is a not a call for moderation. It is not a call for splitting the difference.”

Comment: For all of its frailties – and there are some – throwing out the entire health care system in this country to provide free government hand-outs makes no sense. Bennet is right to point out the fallacies of the Medicare for All dalliance – and I hope it becomes just that, a dalliance, not a formal proposal.

• “For me, this isn’t just about beating Trump, which I think is important and essential but not sufficient. We also have to figure out how to govern the country, and we’re not. We weren’t before Trump showed up. I’m not going to say one thing in the primary and something else in the general, and obviously I’m betting on the fact that that’s going to be appealing to people who want politicians to… level with them. That may sound naive, but I think that’s the only path that I have. And I don’t happen to think it’s naive because I think what’s naive is imagining that we can keep repeating what we’re doing in Washington – and this is even without Trump – and imagine that our kids and grandkids are going to remember us very favorably.”

Comment: Again, Bennet is on right on point. Beating Trump ought to be a top goal, so we, as Americans, don’t have to try to survive four more years of stupidity and worse.

As all of us consider presidential candidates for the 2020 election I, for one, intend to give Bennet a closer look.

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 blog headline above refers to my experience yesterday – walking Illahe Hills Golf Course here in Salem, Oregon to watch high school athletes play golf in a tournament that drew all five schools from our city.

Great fun!

I love that our course made time for the kids to play. Most of them don’t have access to a course of such high quality on a regular basis, so I, as one Illahe member, support giving kids of all abilities the experience to play in tournaments on an excellent course.

My fond memory, of course, applies to my own experience many moons ago of watching my son Eric play in high school tournaments. He had honed his game in his early years at Illahe.

It was not uncommon, in the summer, for me to drop him off at Illahe in the morning, then pick him up as light faded into night. He would have hit 10 bags of golf balls on the range, gone for a swim, played a bit of tennis, charges my number at the hamburger and hot dog shop, then gone out for golf with some of the older guys at Illahe who wanted to play, they told me, “with the young guy with a shock of red hair who could hit the ball a mile.”

The experience at Illahe was a key factor in Eric getting a golf scholarship to play for the Beavers at Oregon State University, which turned out to be another great experience for him.

At one point, he even gave me just a bit of credit for helping him get his start in golf, which remains a passion for him to this day. Good for a father to hear such a comment!

My daughter, Lissy, also had great experiences at Illahe, some on the golf course, and some in the swimming pool where she spent time with friends, intent on opening the pool in the spring and closing it in the fall.

Memories like this came flooding back to me as I watched high school golf yesterday.

Three of my young friends were involved, each of whom is in a family with an Illahe Hills membership and each of whom tolerates me as an “old guy friend.”

• Quincy Beyrouty is in her final year at Sprague High School, then, upon graduation, will head up to George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon to pursue her degree on a golf scholarship.
• Her brother, Sawyer, leads the boys team at Sprague where he hits the ball a mile.
• Brandon Eyre is a sophomore at West Salem High School where he is a three-sport star – football, basketball and golf – though it appears he will focus on golf as he prepares for college, still a couple years away.

Great kids all!

It was a great day for me yesterday to be able to walk or ride with them on few golf holes and to see first-hand how they conducted themselves with golf skill and golf etiquette.

And note that I have not written word-one about their scores. For this blog, scores don’t matter. What does matter is seeing three great young people have fun on the golf course, with me in the audience.