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

If you are a golf fan, one of the best tournaments to watch all year is the Masters at Augusta National, the iconic course in Georgia.

That’s true for me – both because I am a golf fan, as well as because I love the experience of seeing Masters golf amid the azaleas and other colorful flowers in Georgia, not to mention on one of the greatest golf courses in the world.

Sunday, I was glued to the TV for hours!

Watching the Masters again brought back great memories of 2015. My daughter and I attended the tournament that year, being there for the practice round and par 3 tournament on Wednesday, and the first round on Thursday.

Then we hurried back West to watch the last two rounds on TV.

A great experience for father and daughter! A memory for a lifetime!

With all that is being written and will be written about this Masters, why do I feel a need to add my views to the mix?

Good question. Perhaps one reason is that I have nothing else to do in retirement, plus at the bottom of this post, you’ll see a few perceptions that are unlikely to be written about elsewhere.

Any casual reader will know that a tournament result occurred Sunday that benefits golf in many ways. First and foremosts, in what is being called one of the greatest comebacks in all of sports, Tiger Woods won his fifth green jacket, the emblem of the winner.

It was 22 years after his first win at the Masters and 14 years after his fourth win. The achievement also sparked talk about whether Woods ever could reach 18 major tournament wins, which would equal Jack Nicklaus’ record. This was Woods’ 15^th major, and occurred after a variety of physical and emotional difficulties that raised questions about whether Woods would ever play golf again, much less win.

The benefits? Apart from the personal benefits for Woods, whose family was on hand to witness his feat, the gate was up for Sunday with Woods in the mix for all 18 holes. Results are not in yet, but count on the TV viewing rates to be up, as well.

After the great results of the tournament, here are a few other perceptions, which, indicate, again, that I have too much time on my hands in retirement:

• One of my favorite golfers, Phil Mickelson, adopted a new tactic on the course – chewing gum, presumably to provide just a little diversion from the tough playing task ahead.
• Woods, too, was shown chewing gum, which, in his post-tournament press conference, he attributed to the need to do something on the course other than want to eat. Okay?
• And, in what for me represents another reason to like Australia golfer and former Masters champion Adam Scott, he wore pleated golf pants this year. In conversations with the two clothing arbiters of style in my life – wife, Nancy, and daughter, Lissy – I tried to suggest that, because of Scott, I could not wear pleated plants, too.

They would have none of it, believing pleated pants only verify one’s old age.

My response? Yes, I am old. So pleated pants here I come.

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.

No doubt critics of this post would say that I have been spending too much in the sun in Southern California.

But, in the sun and high temperatures here, I have been wondering why elected officials are so eager to propose new taxes. It seems to me they should spend time, first and foremost, to exact a “return on investment” principle from current government programs.

If those government programs fail to perform, they should be gone, thus making room within current spending for programs that produce results.

We had several more indications this week that many elected officials turn first to new taxes:

• U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, has announced that he wants to tax capital gains as regular income, meaning rates up to 37 per cent and he also wants to tax unrealized gains, perhaps decades before the investor sells.
• Governor Kate Brown testified in favor of a new set of tobacco taxes, including a first-in-the-nation tax on vaping and e-cigarettes, all to fund her budget proposal for Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Oregonians.
• Several state senators emerged in Salem with a long-awaited proposal to tax businesses just under one-half of 1 per cent of their gross receipts over $1 million to help fund the costs of K-12 education.

Whatever you think about these proposals – and, for what it’s worth, from my position in the cheap seats, I could support some of them — what troubles me is that the first instinct on the part of many political leaders is to tell taxpayers they need new money.

My view is that such proposals would have more standing if they were preceded by efforts to get the best from current spending.

Let me provide just one example from my past as lobbyist in Oregon. It is a small one, but yet an important one, helping to illustrate my point.

In the 2011 legislative session, my firm’s client, ChristieCare (now called Youth Villages and still a client of the firm I co-founded), proposed legislation – Senate Bill 964 – that rested on a simple premise: The rate of foster care was too high in Oregon and, if we – the state and its contracted entities — provided intensive services to children and their families, there was a way to reduce foster care and keep children in their own homes.

SB 964 contained two very important principles identified by phrases that, at the time, I said should become regular requirements in all state human services contracts – DEFINABLE CLIENT OUTCOMES through PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING.

In other words, under Senate Bill 964, contractors would be expected to produce specific client outcomes, thus earning retention of their contracts by their performance, or, on the other hand, losing their contracts if they failed to perform up to expectations.

It was incredible to me when I learned that this was the first performance-based social services contract language in Oregon law.

Through diligent effort – and over the objections of the agency involved, the Department of Human Services – we passed SB 964 and the governor signed it into law.

And, what happened?

Nothing.

Legislators soon lost track of the requirement and contracts with private sector entities continued without regard to whether they performed or not.

This still stands as a major loss for the State of Oregon, not to mention an example of a law that remains on the books, but is not enforced.

This may be a relatively small issue, though foster care in Oregon remains today a system in search of a solution. But, beyond the subject area, what this indicates to me is that there is more interest in new tades than there is in imposing a “return on investment” standard for existing state government programs.

Too bad, I say.

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 written about this subject on several occasions, but at least I will feel better if I do so again.

And I do so before heading off for the day to watch the Masters’ Golf Tournament on TV, my favorite tournament of the year.

Without trying to pass myself off as any kind of legal expert, I am glad that a person of solid legal stature – Attorney General William Barr – holds that position. He knows what he is doing to strike the right balance between full, word-for-word release of the Mueller report – an action that would either be illegal or ill-advised on several fronts — and releasing as much of the report as possible.

To me, it is clear that Barr is not setting out to shield President Donald Trump from scrutiny, for, surely, Trump deserves as much scrutiny as possible. Barr cannot protect the president, nor, I think, would he set out to do so.

What Barr is not acceding to are demands from many Democrats that he violate the law or genuine privacy interests by releasing the full report.

Expect an appropriately redacted report in by mid-April.

What many Democrats don’t recognize – or at least don’t want to recognize – is that, by law, grand jury material is secret and, in general, can be released only with the permission of a judge and then only under specific circumstances.

So far, no judge has been asked to allow release of the grand jury proceedings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. He apparently relied, at least in part, on those proceedings as he prepared a final report.

According to the Wall Street Journal, few courts have grappled with the question of whether Congress is entitled to grand jury material and, if so, under what circumstances, meaning that there is little precedent for how courts would interpret such a subpoena, if one comes, as is likely, from a House committee.

Just earlier this week, as Barr appeared before a committee in Congress to describe the budget for the Department of Justice (which he leads), members reiterated desire for the full report.  Barr was there for another purpose — to describe the budget for his department, but, to no one’s surprise, the hearing didn’t deal with the budget…it dealt with the release of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said last week, in a case unrelated to the Mueller report, that judges have no inherent authority to release grand jury evidence to individuals seeking the information.

An earlier opinion allowed Congress to obtain such information only in the context of an impeachment proceeding, which may mean that House Democrats move soon choose to file impeachment charges against Trump, which he may deserve in spades, but which may be related more to seeing a full, un-redcated Mueller report than to move forward on impeachment articles.

Beyond grand jury proceedings, there are at least two other bases for redacting parts of the Mueller report. One is that persons may have been identified in the report who were never charged with any offenses, so releasing their names would subject those individuals to invasions of privacy.

A second reason is that it is possible parts of the report may have national security implications, making release against the best interests of the country.

Barr understands these issues very well and, further, said he would make his own reasoned decisions – not influenced by Trump and not influenced by left-of-center Democrats.

I, for one, am glad a person of Barr’s credentials is in this hot seat.

Here are a couple reasons why.

First, I still remember the occasion when Barr was up for confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Various Democrats on the committee wanted Barr to pledge that, when he received advice from those who work for him, including in the internal ethics office of the Department of Justice, he would follow it.

He said, no, he would make his own decisions after taking stock of staff recommendations, which is exactly what any top executive should do.

Second, Barr has functioned so far as an Executive Branch official. He doesn’t report to Congress; he relates to Congress. He makes his own decisions and then stands up to be counted as being responsible for those decisions.

Based on my own experience as an Oregon state government high-level manager – without comparing myself in any way to Barr – that’s exactly how a high-level official should act.

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 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) scores again this week with a renewed commitment to civil discourse in this country, or at least among WSJ readers, including me.

The news came yesterday in a memo from Wall Street Journal executive editor Matt Murray under the headline “elevating our discourse.”

Now, various of my friends who operate from the left of center – and I add that “there is nothing wrong with that “– would say that the Wall Street Journal takes a conservative viewpoint on everything, so bests not to rely on that news source.  I disagree.  The WSJ practices the art of journalism with skill and precision, always denoting the difference between reporting and opinion.

I add that, beyond the WSJ, I also read the Washington Post every day with its left-of-center perspective in an attempt to take more than one side of an issue and decide for myself.  And the Posts also practices solid journalism.

Better the WSJ and the Post than to focus on the pervasive effects of social media these days, which exists, not to provide information and context, but rather to inflame readers.

Here’s the way Matt Murray explained a new WSJ focus:

“Our readers like active engagement with the news. We have heard from you that you strongly desire a place to read a variety of audience perspectives, that you want posts that are thoughtful and, also, that you would like an environment in which you feel comfortable to share your own insights.

“In interviews and surveys of our membership and the broader public, people say they would like to contribute to audience conversations on our web site but that they have, over time, become turned off by the growing toxicity that is rampant all over the Internet.

“We want our web-site to lead the way in pushing for elevated discourse. This week, we are introducing initial steps that will pave the way for audience conversations that more of you may be interested in reading and perhaps in contributing to. We will have more steps and new features in coming months. We welcome your feedback and you can write me at the below email address.

“News thrives when it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public, and amid conversations among readers themselves.”

Notice a key phrase from Murray: “News thrives where it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public.”

Kudos to him for, not just a great turn of phrase, but a solid commitment, as well.  I wish the commitment also would extend to citizens and those who represent them, but that appears to be far from reality and both sides choose to disagree disagreeably.

Here are five key tenets of the WSJ commitment:

1. To keep discussions free of objectionable content streaming in from outside the WSJ community, the audience conversation feature will now be an exclusive benefit for our members.
2. To give both our members and WSJ editors the ability to focus on the day’s top stories, we will be limiting the number of open articles and closing discussions after 48 hours. You will be able to find articles with open conversations in a featured box on the bottom of all articles on our site.
3. The SJ has improved what it calls its “moderation process” to better enforce existing policies. It also has hired additional journalists to engage with the “Audience Conversation” to enhance the free expression of ideas and foster civility in our community.
4. To facilitate thoughtful and meaningful discourse, a WSJ reporter will initiate the discussion with a question. This will help keep comments on point and give members the ability to interact with our journalists.
5. The WSJ says it is committed to transparency and has created a system to notify members immediately when comments are approved or rejected.

This is a great addition to a meaningful commitment: Improving civil discourse in this country. Does it solve a problem all on its own? Of course not.

But it hews toward what should be a commitment in this country: Enabling citizens to engage with the media to increase understanding on both sides.

Too often, various sides of  contentious issues in this country spend time, figuratively, yelling on street corners to avow that they and only they have the right answers to every  question. Citizens who engage in this kind of behavior probably follow the instincts of those who represent us – including President Donald Trump and Members of Congress.

They disagree on many issues and spend time ridiculing the other side rather than seeking middle ground, which is where the best solutions lie any.

Again, does the WSJ initiative create, on its own, civil discourse.?  No, but it clearly is a step in the right direction.

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

If we needed another verification that President Donald Trump is a serial cheater, we got one recently when a story in the Wall Street Journal(WSJ) announced this, though, of course, any smart person like me would not need an announcement:

He cheats at golf, too.

So, call Trump “Pele,” a reference most young people would not recognize. For a quick explanation see below.

According to the WSJ, “A longtime sportswriter claims in a new book that President Trump frequently cheats at golf and likened Trump’s habit to a way of ‘showing you that he’s better than you.’

“He cheats like a mafia accountant. He cheats crazy. He cheats whether you’re watching or not. He cheats whether you like it or not.”

The reporter who write the story, Rick Reilly, recounted several vignettes from his new book “Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump.” He said Trump cheats, even against professional players.

Reilly goes on.

“Trump’s caddies also allegedly know to accommodate his penchant. He kicks the ball out of the rough so many times, the caddies call him ‘Pele,’ after the famous soccer player that persons my age remember. (Pele, who remains a towering figure in the sport of soccer, retired from competitive play in the 1970s.)

So, Trump’s “Pele” in golf exemplifies his approach to life and “public service,” though that term should never be applied to Trump.

Cheating is a way of life for him.

He lies about his age. He lies about his grades in college. He lies about Korea. He lies about China. He lies about size of his properties – and other stuff, if you get my drift. He lies about his tax returns.

He lies about all of his supposed achievements as it appears he is vying for another four years in office, perish the thought.

So, the moral of this story: Don’t believe anything Trump says.

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.

By the actions and antics of many of those either running for or holding elective office – not to mention voters themselves – it appears that character is not much of a political consideration these days.

I listened the other day to a presentation by Walter Schaub, who held the position of director of the Federal Ethics Office for a number of years until his retirement a year or so ago. He served with distinction and skill for his time in the ethics office.

One of his main comments was this:

In the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal, many elected officials, as well as voters, displayed a renewed commitment to ethical conduct and behavior, especially in relation to the exact opposite of the Nixon Administration. Now, however, much of that commitment to ethical behavior and conduct has receded.

Mr. Schaub was right.

Look only so far as President Donald Trump for whom ethical behavior and conduct are not even on his radar scope. He acts in unethical ways in almost all of his dealings, indicating that he was not prepared for the realities of being president – or perhaps was prepared in the sense that serving in the Oval Office strokes his massive ego.

Trump treated the presidential campaign as an infomercial for his Trump brand. And, he has gone about holding the nation’s highest political office in the same way – it’s mostly an infomercial for his economic holdings.

Many members of Congress are no better than Trump.

They appeal to their political bases without much apparent regard for being honest and forthright. If their bases are happy, so be it. If they win election or re-election, so be it. Damn the public interest.

Or, this. While I hate to quote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because he usually is so far left of center, he was right when he wrote this about Senator Bernie Sanders:

“In politics, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

“Hence, Senator Bernie Sanders’s emergence as the Donald Trump of the left.

“Fundraising and polls show that many Democrats think the best answer to an angry old white guy with crazy hair, New York accent and flair for demagoguery is, well, another angry old white guy with crazy hair, New York accent and flair for demagoguery. It’s not difficult to picture a scenario in which Bernie captures the Democrat presidential nomination with the same formula that worked for Trump with Republicans in 2016.

“On paper, the independent from Vermont doesn’t make sense: Democrats are a party of youth, and he’s 77; they are majority-female, and he’s a man; they represent the emerging multicultural America, and he is white.”

In this and other pieces about Sanders, there is not one word about character. To him, as well as to Trump, character does not matter. Appeal to your base. Utter falsehoods as if they are true. Let the chips fall where they may without regard to ethical behavior or conduct.

Overall, this is true on both the far left and the far right, indicating that the best approach may be to say, as I do, “a pox on both extremes.”

Let’s consider candidates who will gravitate toward the middle or even a third-party candidate who will pledge to do the public’s business when running for office, and then when in office, do it.

It’s time for a change in this country. Neither Trump nor Sanders fit the bill.

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 earlier in this space about this pet peeve:  Certain words frequently readily used in politics have meanings that are at least veiled, if not totally unknown.

One of those words is “transparency.”

It has become a very popular word in political circles these days, but I never know what it really means.

Sure, open government is a good idea, including for voters who need to understand how to understand and rate their government. But open everything? No.

Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel wrote about this concern recently, adding perspective to my unease with “transparency,” even as she related the word to the current kerfuffle between Members of Congress and Attorney General Bill Barr over release, or not, of the Mueller report.

Here are excerpted quotes from her column:

“More important than the practical consequences of going along with the Democrats is the principle of standing firm. ‘Transparency’ is one of those feel-good words that lead to sloppy thinking. Who doesn’t want more government transparency? Most people, when they think about it.

“But, who wants generals posting attack plans online? Who wants President Trump tweeting out the nuclear codes?

“More important, who wants the federal government spreading unfounded or uncorroborated accusations? Grand-jury and special-counsel investigations represent government power at its biggest and scariest. They can compel witnesses to reveal all manner of intimate details—banking records, personal text messages, loan defaults, medical information. The proceedings are kept secret to encourage candor—and candor also results in witnesses with grudges, speculation and even false testimony. Those swept up in probes like Mr. Mueller’s are often private citizens, innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Well said, both in the context of release of the Mueller report, as well in the general issue of the meaning of “transparency.”

As in the cases of the words “progressive” and “democratic,” “transparency” should be defined, not just used as a generalization.

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 used to be that the term “whopper” often referred to the size of a fish caught at the end of a pole.

My Dad used that phrase – “look, I’ve caught another whopper” – too many times for me to remember each one.

Today, however, the term often refers to big lies told as a matter of course by President Donald Trump. It also could refer to the huge exaggerations told by most of those running for president on the Democrat side. Those are lies, too. They are true “whoppers!”

But, back to Trump.

He has made lying an art form as if he believes – and he probably does – that the bigger the lie the more it will take root, especially in social media platforms operated by those on the right, if not the far right. And, when lies take root, they almost become fact.

However, it would not be accurate to put Trump on the right – the conservative side – in any discussion of politics. He would not appear on the political spectrum as he burnishes his own “Trump Brand” through his term as the so-called “leader of the free world.”

The same can be said of those on the far left, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. There is no way to say that they have the best interests of the country at heart as they pivot to and fro in their campaigns, though I guess it would be fair to add that, at least so far, Ocasio-Cortez is not running for president.

Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake performed a service recently by listing the top 10 whoppers told by Trump.

The trouble, of course, is that a lot of Americans believe him.

Here is a summary of the list:

10. Exercise shortens your life.

The claim: Washington Post reporters Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish reported that Trump “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

9. Global warming is a Chinese hoax.

The claim: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

8. His inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama’s.

The claim: “I made a speech. I looked out. The field was — it looked like a million, a million and a half people.’’ White House press secretary Sean Spicer assured that it was the “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in-person and around the globe.”

7. Wind farms cause cancer.

The claim: “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 per cent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay?”

6. There were 3 million to 5 million illegal votes in 2016, and none were for Trump.

The claim: “Of those votes cast, none of ’em come to me. None of ’em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of ’em come to me.”

5. His father was born in Germany.

The claim: “My father is German — was German. Born in a very wonderful place in Germany, so I have a great feeling for Germany.” [It was not his father, but his grandfather.]

4. Pershing executed Muslim terrorists with blood-tipped bullets.

The claim: He said of U.S. General John J. Pershing duringthe U.S. Philippine War: “They were having terrorism problems, just like we do. And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood . . . And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem.” It was a clear reference to Muslims, and the idea that the pig’s blood would prevent them from going to heaven.

3. Foul play in Antonin Scalia’s death.

The claim: Within days of the Supreme Court justice’s 2016 death, Trump told conservative talker Michael Savage, “I’m hearing it’s a big topic. It’s a horrible topic but they’re saying they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.” He added: “I can’t give you an answer. It’s just starting to come out now.”

2. His stage-rusher was tied to ISIS.

The claim: In a tweet, Trump said of a man who rushed the stage at a rally in Ohio and was apprehended, “USSS [Secret Service] did an excellent job stopping the maniac running to the stage. He has ties to ISIS. Should be in jail.” He attached a video detailing the man’s alleged ties to ISIS.

1. It might not be his voice on the “Access Hollywood” tape.

The claim: After Trump apologized for his “locker room talk” on that tape, he privately floated the idea that it wasn’t actually him at all, according to the New York Times. “We don’t think that was my voice,” he reportedly told a GOP senator he was imploring to investigate.

For me, one of the biggest whoppers, if not the biggest, is Trump’s claim that his goal to “make America great again.”

No, his goal is to continue broadcasting an infomercial for his brand and the country be damned.

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.

There is no better way to say this than the headline to this blog. Let me repeat it. The Wall Street Journal agrees with me and I agree with the Journal.

But, enough of the attempt to aggrandize myself from my position in the cheap seats out West.

The agreement to which I refer relates to an issue that continues to roil Congress – whether the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation should be released in full to Congress, or, in fact, would it be legal for that to occur.

As I have written previously, I am glad that someone of the stature of William Barr is serving as this country’s Attorney General. He is making and will make a solid decision on the issue of release – in full (not likely, given various legal constraints), in part (perhaps) or in redacted form (very likely).

Here is the summary of what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said:

“Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Good.

Now, to verify my agreement with the Wall Street Journal, not to mention my notion that certain Members of Congress are in this fray with their own political ends in mind (and, not, I add, for me to favor protecting President Donald Trump whom I wish was not in office), I re-print the full editorial, which appeared under this headline:

Trolling the Mueller Report

Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a cover-up

Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a cover-up.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

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.

Colleagues in my old firm, CFM Strategic Communications, have engaged in an interesting – and friendly – argument over the last few days. I have been part of the argument.

It is this:

Do we have to bow and scrape to the so-called “AP Style?”

The initials AP refer to the Associated Press. My wording of the question illustrates my bias.

My answer is no.

For some of my colleagues, the answer is yes.

Many regular persons don’t even know that something called the “AP Style” exists. Well, it does.

But it was intended for those who write for newspapers, including me back in the day when I was a reporter for The Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon. The rationale was to bring consistency to reporting.

According to AP style, for instance, a reporter should always spell out the word per cent – and it would be two words, not one. And, in what I believe was an example of the over-zealous style folks, you would always have two spaces between sentences, not one.

Though, as heinous as this may be, AP style recently has reverted to one space, not two.

Does all of this matter? Of course the answer is no.

But, to my old colleagues — emphasis on “old,” — adherence to AP Style is still viewed as critical, both for journalists and for public relations professionals, the latter of which is a service provided by my old firm.

This also may be an illustration that I have too much time on my hands in retirement to focus on this. But, in the spirit of over-the-top, sometimes irrelevant detail, here are a few of my style ingredients, not AP Style,with a rationale for each.

Always use hyphens when hyphens contribute to readability.

Consider this example — the word “bipartisan.” A casual reader, one not addicted to political issues as I am, might read the word this way – bip-artisan.

Therefore, I always write the word like this – bi-partisan.

Or, consider words that begin with “re,” such as re-examine.  They read much better with a hyphen.

Always use as many commas as possible because favoring the pause by a comma contributes to readability.

Consider this sentence.

“But, when I talked with the Bank yesterday, I understood that staff there had mailed documents to me.”

I wrote that sentence the other day and I think it reads better with the commas, even though AP Style may argue against it. Without commas, the sentence would read like this – But when I talked with the Bank yesterday I understood that staff there had mailed documents to me.

To repeat, with the commas – and the pauses they denote – the sentence reads better.

Don’t use abbreviations when full words are more readable.

AP Style calls for using such abbreviations as Sen. for Senator and Rep. for Representative. I decline to do so. Just spell out the full word.

In the same way, AP Style calls for this – Representative (my style) Greg Walden, R-Ore. I depart from AP Style, always using the full word, Oregon

Develop your own style for using capital letters.

I say your own style because AP Style is nothing but confusing on this point. For instance, as you write about the Oregon Legislature, does the word “legislature” deserve a capital L or not? I say yes. AP Style is not clear.

At least one of the AP Style pieces of advice is also accurate from the standpoint of English language style. It is this: Dave Fiskum, director of the Department of Pet Peeves, is making full and complete decisions about what is a pet peeve and what is not.

In this sentence, correct style calls for the word “director” to carry a small D. If, however, the title “director” preceded Fiskum’s name, it would be a capital D.

Now, if you have managed to read this far, you no doubt will agree with me that all of this does not matter in the real world. No it doesn’t. But it is fun for me to ruminate on these issues and to argue with my colleagues about them.