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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

**********

NOTE: Most Senate Republicans returned to the Capitol yesterday so legislative business could continue, with a quorum, in the face of an 11:50 p.m. Sunday deadline for the session, by law, to end. Saturday was a long day at the Capitol and will be again today Sunday. Three Senate Republicans were absent – Fred Girod from Stayton who said he had promised constituents he would say, so he did; Dennis Linthicum from Klamath Falls for who knows what reason; and Brian Boquist from Dallas who had issued major threat to State Police if they came looking for him which led many to believe that he would shoot. Thus, if he carried a gun on the Senate floor, some feared for their safety.  Such is the stuff illustrating how far the Legislature has fallen in terms of equity, forbearance and safety, not to mention just doing the job they were elected to do.

**********

Okay, here’s an idea. If you are concerned about the “culture” at the Capitol in Oregon, pass a law to change it.

Don’t expect elected office holders and their staff to behave responsibly. Just pass a law.

I’ve heard of legislating behavior, but this takes the cake.

Here are experts from a House Democrat news release touting the action.

“Bi-partisan legislation aiming to make significant improvements to the culture at the Oregon State Capitol is on its way to Oregon Governor Kate Brown for her signature.

House Concurrent Resolution 20 and House Bill 3377 update internal Capitol rules – both of which passed in the Oregon Senate yesterday (Saturday) – ensure ongoing respectful workplace trainings and establish the independent Legislative Equity Office to handle complaints.

“The Capitol should be a place where people of all backgrounds and walks of life can come together for the common good of all Oregonians,” Joint Committee on Capitol Culture Co-Chair Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) said. “I have been committed to doing the work necessary to make sure everyone who works in or visits our State Capitol feels welcome and safe. This legislation meets that goal.”

Does passing a law “ensure” respectful conduct? No.

And, to my friend, Senator Burdick, I say, simply EXPECT better behavior so “people of all backgrounds and walks of life can come together for the common good of all Oregonians.”

With all the important issues on the legislative agenda as the process drives toward a conclusion, this bill – engineering personal conduct – is one that should have been left on the cutting room floor.

I say – just behave better because it’s what supposedly mature adults should do without an silly legal mandate.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

First, let me confess that I did not watch either of the so-called Democrat Presidential Debates because, for one thing, they were not debates, but rather theater to decide who say something idiotic to grab the stage.

Second, after reading commentary on each of the two “debates,” I have one conclusion (and, from here on in this post, I will put quote marks around the word “debate” because of its inaccuracy):

The process focused on competing efforts to spend someone else’s money – yours and mine.

Free health care.

Free college.

Reparations for slavery.

Requiring a so-called “green economy” that would require re-building all structures in the U.S. according to some kind of new code.

I call this socialism, which has been espoused by more than just Senator Bernie Sanders. He had a lot contenders on the “debate” stage this week.

In the Wall Street Journal, one of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, put it this way as she skewered the “debate” participants about their performance:

“Every day, Americans are told of the endless ways they are falling short. If we don’t show the ‘proper’ level of understanding according to a talking head, then we are surely racist. If we don’t embrace every sanitized PC talking point, then we must be heartless. If we have the audacity to speak our mind, then we are most definitely a bigot. These accusations are relentless.

“We are jabbed like a boxer with no gloves on to defend us. And we are fed up. We are tired of being told we aren’t good enough.”

So, many voters ran toward Trump in the last election and may head his direction in 2020, even as the Ds compete to turn the U.S. into a socialist country while they spend more of someone else’s money.

Now, to be sure, there are ills in capitalism, some of which we see every day when the private sector makes mistakes. But mistakes are not all that is done as businesses hire employees, sell or make stuff and participate in the process of earning their way to solvency.

Better, I say, than expecting more government hand-outs.

Through the “debates,” we got another strong indication of the government handout rationale. Not surprisingly, it dealt with health care.

Senator Bernie Sanders, competing again to be president, not only went on record in favor of socialized health care, he said his plan would require every American to enter a government health care abyss whether they wanted to enter or not…

No more private health care. Like your doctor or your hospital?  Sanders doesn’t care. He has a plan for you.

What does not need to happen on health care is more diatribes on the ills of health care from Sanders and his ilk on the far left. We need solid minds from all political spectrums to participate in a process to reform health care in this country.

What would that reform look like? Don’t know. That’s why we need a bi-partisan, collegial process to find out. So it would not be the Ds Medicare for All proposal. It would not be the Republicans saying just “no” at every turn.

It would be a process designed to meet in the middle. A great place to be. Imagine that.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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’s hard, in some ways, to know how to comment on the current walk-out in Salem, which has extended beyond a week. [Late work today is the walk-out may end on Saturday as delinquent Republicans return to the Capitol.]

As a political junkie, I cannot avoid commenting.

So, here are a few competing perceptions:

COMPLAINTS FILED OPPOSING SENATE R FINE-PAYING OPTIONS: A collection of environmental groups and labor unions – probably most the public employee union type – filed complaints with the Secretary of State and the Oregon Government Ethics Commission contending that R senators should not be allowed to use their campaign funds to pay fines imposed due to their absence from the Capitol.

It is not clear, at the moment, whether the Secretary of State or the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction to consider the complaint. [And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I currently serve on the Ethics Commission, so will reserve all comment until I hear all sides of the issue at an upcoming meeting.]

A VIEW FROM ONE OF MY FRIENDS: Perhaps indicating that “regular citizens” – bless their hearts – don’t want to focus on the juvenile to-ing and fro-ing at the Capitol, one of my friends expressed this chagrin:

Lawmakers who walk-out portray a terrible example for those who watch the legislature, especially young people. If you don’t get your way, you leave. Like the old saw, “Take your toys and go home.”

Plus, my friend said, take away ALL salaries and benefits for those who leave their jobs at the Capitol. If the senators are not doing their work, they should not be paid, he said. When, or perhaps if, they return, they should have to apply for salary and benefits all over again.

A COMMENT FROM KNUTE BUEHLER: The candidate who lost to Governor Kate Brown in the last election, Knute Buehler from Bend, continues to share his views in a periodic e-mail to friends and acquaintances, leading to speculation, by the way, that he still harbors political ambitions, perhaps to run for the 2^nd District Congressional seat when Greg Walden decides he has enough of Washington, D.C.

After saying that he supported the walk-out, here is how he took on the person who beat him, Governor Brown:

“Governor Kate Brown has earned thumbs down for rampant extremism and creating the most egregious and divisive legislative session in our beautiful state’s history. Governor Brown and the Democrat super-majorities have taken advantage of their power and gone too far.

“Forcing statewide rent control, a new business sales tax, stealing part of the kicker, creating a carbon cap and trade slush fund and even taxing paddle boards! While, we’ve seen no meaningful progress for foster kids, homeless, education quality or fixing PERS.

“We’re just six months in to Governor Brown’s four-year term and we have seen a total disregard for how hard working Oregonians can continue to afford to live, work, and raise a family here.”

Whether Buehler is right or wrong about the walk-out, he has a point about the Democrat agenda at the Capitol, which has veered pretty far left.

A COMMENT FROM A FARMER: In the Salem Statesman newspaper, a 5^th generation farmer was quoted in a way that, probably, illustrated the views of many rural Oregonians.

“Those of us who make a living from the land are the best environmental stewards there are. Those who work outside are more in touch with the climate that those who legislate the climate.”

FROM BEND BULLETIN EDITORIAL WRITERS: “Governor Kate Brown and other Democrats criticized the walk-out in a medley of put-downs. ‘The Republicans are driving us away from the values that Oregonians hold dear, and are moving us dangerously close to the self-serving stalemate in Washington, D.C.,’ Brown said.

“That’s a curious perspective from Brown. In 2001, when she was the leader of the Senate Democrats, Brown backed a walk-out of House Democrats who didn’t like what House Republicans were doing in a fight over redistricting. She called the action by House Democrats “’very appropriate under the circumstances.’

“’Under certain circumstances, it’s fair to say we would use all the tools available to us,’ she added.”

FROM THE BLOGS WRITTEN IN MY OLD FIRM, CFM STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: “The final days of any legislative session tend to be chaotic, despite the best intentions of well-meaning legislative leaders. All the big issues bottled up during the session or the ones facing 11th-hour negotiating deadlines are suddenly alive. These tend to be issues that can’t just be swept under the rug, so some resolution is necessary.

“To outside eyes, the spectacle can seem bizarre and brazen. It is, but it also is how the process grinds to a conclusion, which rarely makes everyone happy, but is enough to allow enough people to vote to go home.”

AND THIS FINAL THOUGHT FROM ME: Without trying to understand all of the machinations of the Senate R walk-out, one fact remains puzzling to me. It is why what should be a major issue for all ALL legislators – preserving existing jobs and creating an environment that incents business to create new ones.

The issue that has been the pivot for the walk-out strategy – the so-called “cap-and-trade” bill – could (read could) cost thousands of job, especially in Eastern Oregon.

So, my question is why risk those jobs.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

**********

NOTE: The fact that I am able to post this blog this morning indicates something important about me: I did not watch either of the so-called “debates” among Democrat contenders for presidentin 2020 – either Wednesday’s event involving the first 10 or last night’s event for the remaining 10. So, it is hard to comment on the inane character of the events, tough I guess I just did with the word “inane.” Did voters learning anything through the process? I suspect the answer is a resounding no.

**********

The word “spinning” got another high-profile mention a few weeks ago as Democrats in Congress accused Attorney General William Barr of spinning as he released and commented on the Mueller Report.

Democrats, of course, wanted the Mueller Report to do something it didn’t do, which is proposing to charge President Donald Trump with crimes, including obstruction of justice. Because, for better or worse, it didn’t do that, the Ds were incensed and prepared to lambaste Barr for doing what they always do, which is to spin.

For now, I’ll leave assessments of Barr’s conduct to others (though, I add that, from my post in the cheap seats out West, I generally laud Barr’s performance i the Mueller Report issue and other matters).

What I will do is comment on the word “spinning.”

Here, first, is the dictionary definition of the term: 

“To give (a news story or other information) a particular interpretation, especially a favorable one.”

So, if only based on this definition, the fact is that everyone spins. To put a point on it, critics of spinning are spinning.

Here some examples.

For newspapers, it’s all the news that fits, not necessarily all the news that’s fit to print. I say this as a former reporter for daily newspaper. The challenge was to write stories that fit into the otherwise-empty space.

Plus, reporters were told to write “in the inverted pyramid style,” so, if only for space reasons, their stories could be cut from the bottom up, with the important facts first.

Consider radio and television stations. What they produce as what they call news is limited by the time of the broadcast, not to mention the need to save time for advertising.

Or, public officials, do they spin? Yes. All the time.

In fact, over my 25 years in the firm I co-founded, CFM Strategic Communications, we usually advised clients to put their best foot forward. Provide information that, if possible and accurate, reflected positively on their enterprise. Call this spinning.

As for political analysts and columnists, they spin, too, if only to limit the words they write to the space available, but also to stimulate readership and viewership.

Finally, the fact is that those who criticize spinning are spinning themselves.

So, if we all do it, why is spinning sometimes viewed as bad?

Well, sometimes, the bad part of spinning is when the spin is designed, as in the case of President Trump, to tear someone down in what can only be called “the politics of personal destruction.” That’s what Trump does for a living.

And, unfortunately, those on the other side spin too in an attempt to criticize someone or put someone on the defensive. Not just to advance their own cause, but to derail someone’s else by the use of pejorative names and ridicule.

Spinning is also bad when it is patently and objectively false. Again, Trump is the best (or is it worst?) example of using no accurate facts as he tweets (and, unfortunately, reporters hang on every word in those tweets).

From her post on the far left, not even on any political spectrum, U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez gives Trump a run for his money on any criteria related to spinning to slam someone else or resort to outright falsehoods.

To all of this: Recognize spinning it for what it is – an attempt to put your best foot forward. And, on the personal destruction or falsehood type of spinning, ignore it.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19TH 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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of my favorite political columnists, Michael Gerson, has scored again with an insightful piece analyzing the person who claims to be president of the United States, but doesn’t act like a rational leader of the free world.

That, of course, is Donald Trump and Gerson skewers him under this headline:
Trump isn’t just speaking lies. He’s inviting loyalists to live in his own political reality.

Rather than try to write my own words – they would not be as good as those by Gerson, plus I choose to focus on this piece instead of on last night’s silly Democrat presidential debate – I will simply repeat the Gerson column here. It’s worth reading.

*******
When dealing with a political figure who faces allegations of sexual assault financial misdeeds and obstruction of justice, it is difficult to sort out the greatest damage to our public life. But a strong case can be made that it is the assault on truth.
This was again on display during a recent interview of President Trump by NBC News’s Chuck Todd. When asked his reaction to losing the popular vote in 2016, Trump returned to the narrative that he had been robbed of a popular-vote victory through fraud. “I’ll say something that, again, is controversial,” said Trump. “There were a lot of votes cast that I don’t believe. I look at California . . . Take a look at their settlement where California admitted to a million votes.”
Trump’s claim is not just “controversial.” It is a whole-cloth fabrication by the most ambitious fabulist in presidential history. The “settlement” to which Trump was apparently referencing was a judicial order for the state of California to remove about a million inactive voters from its registration list. This can in no way be interpreted as a million fraudulent votes cast for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (which still would not have won Trump California or the national popular vote).
Is Trump’s determination to inhabit his self-blown truth bubble a psychological compulsion or a political ploy? That is an interesting question, but an academic one. Each explanation reinforces the other.
Most of Trump’s boldest lies are devoted to protecting himself from facts that diminish him. So, his net worth must be exaggerated, no matter what his tax returns might say. His inaugural crowd must be larger than Barack Obama’s, no matter what aerial photographs clearly show. He was cheated out of a popular vote victory, no matter what the evidence indicates.
Sometimes Trump’s self-serving deceptions are hard for followers to keep straight. The Mueller report, for example, was both dismissed as the illegitimate work of Democratic agents and embraced as complete vindication on matters of collusion and obstruction. Even though the explanations are inconsistent, they are unified by Trump’s broader purpose: the bending of reality to serve his self-perception.
Some kind of personal pathology seems to be at work. Trump’s epistemology is not so much relativistic as solipsistic. He has a bottomless need to project himself as wealthier, stronger, smarter and better than he actually is. This is a sign, not of strength, but of psychological fragility. Desperation for the illusion of mastery is the evidence of deep brokenness. It indicates a hunger for affirmation that reality will never fill. This encourages both self-delusion and the spinning of elaborate, self-serving lies.
Why should these attributes bother us in a president? Because narcissism is not merely a stronger form of personal ambition. It is a different and distorted way of perceiving the world. Part of psychological wholeness — and of responsible political leadership — is the ability to consider reality from someone else’s perspective. But Trump seems incapable of escaping the small, dark cell of his own immediate needs and desires. He can’t see the world from the standpoint of an ally or an enemy. He seems immune to empathy for a minority facing prejudice, or a refugee fleeing from oppression, or a migrant child separated from his or her parents.
And Trump appears to accept no moral standards external to his interests. Every principle or truth is judged in relation to the welfare of his person. There is apparently nothing he won’t say to maintain the mythology that he is the winningest winner there ever was or will be. This means that he careens from crisis to crisis without moral guardrails.
Trump is not only speaking a series of lies. He is inviting millions of loyalists to live in a political reality conjured by his deceptions. Any news critical of him is “fake.” Any agitprop that supports him — even by the purveyors of conspiracy theories — is to be believed. And any election he might lose is fraudulent.
Not long ago, I sat on a plane next to a knowledgeable and articulate Trump supporter. The talk turned to the Mueller report, and I mentioned that Robert Mueller was awarded the Bronze Star for his bravery in Vietnam. “How do you know that?” snapped my conversation partner. I sputtered something about reading it in multiple, reliable sources. She remained unconvinced.
How is any political conversation or policy discussion possible when citizens inhabit separate universes of truth and meaning? This is Trump’s most dangerous innovation: epistemology as cult of personality.

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

One of my friends, a former state lobby colleague, asked a good question the other evening. It was this:

Do lobby coalitions work and, if so, how do they work?

Well, as a top Salem lobbyist, she probably already knew the answer. But, in this blog, I’ll endeavor to provide my best attempt at some perspectives, with comments.

1. What are lobby coalitions? The term refers to situations where groups with similar interests band together to advocate for results at the Capitol.
2. Do coalitions work these days? Yes.
3. Are coalitions a magic answer to achieving results for clients? No. They are one means to an end.

My view is that smart lobbyists at the Capitol are very willing to start or join coalitions because of their value, which I express in these ways:

• Coalitions help to verify that you are not alone in what you are advocating in Salem.
• Coalitions help to avoid what I call “the special interest contention” – statements by those who oppose you that you are just a special interest and, therefore, not worthy of consideration.
• Coalitions help to make arguments you advance better because those arguments have to pass muster in a group – a group whose members, I like to say, sing from the same sheet of music, but in different voices.
• And, of course, coalitions help to spread the work of lobbying around to a group, a fact which helps to indicate that advocacy is not just being done on the part of one lobbyist for one client.

Some lobbyists in Salem are good at working together in pursuit of a joint goal. But there are those who are not good at it, as well. I remember a situation where some of us who were advocating for targeted state funding for quality arts programs in the state – me for Oregon Public Broadcasting – got together to work together.

In several cases, we met at the Governor’s Residence in Salem because the First Lady was in favor of arts funding, especially for a program called “Main Street Oregon.” She clearly was on board with all other arts interests and believed that working together would increase chances for success.

At one meeting, when we went around the room to express solidarity with the group goal, one of the lobbyists said she could not join in an expression of support because, in the end, she might have to go her own way on behalf of her clients. In other words, a single interest was more important than the group interest.

With her comment, we had to kick her out of the meeting, plus the coalition, because she couldn’t support the group effort.

Let me put this more positively by citing a couple examples where, with colleagues in my firm, I created coalitions and used the collective advocacy to achieve solid results.

Case #1: When I represented Providence Health System and was advocating for sustained, if not increased, state government investments in Medicaid (the program that serves thousands of low-income Oregonians), I worked with my client to create what could be called an “internal coalition.”

It consisted of nurses and doctors within Providence who shared the goal of sustained or increased investments in Medicaid. With permission from these individuals, we produced one-page summaries, including their names, their photos, and their positions within Providence, along with their words advocating for Medicaid.

We then distributed these one-pagers at the Capitol, especially to legislators serving on the Joint Ways and Means Committee who would make the final decisions on funding.

Some might call this “grassroots lobbying” – getting real people from real places in Oregon to make their real advocacy known at the Capitol.

But, this also was a coalition and the result was that we sustained funding for Medicaid, even though there were many competitors for the state dollars.

Of course, beyond this internal resource, I and others chose to work within a broader coalition of all those interested in health care for low-income citizens, including the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the Oregon Medical Association, the Oregon Nurses Association, the Oregon Health Care Association (nursing homes) and various others who supported quality health care investments.

Case #2: When I was advocating for state funds to help defray Oregon’s share of the costs to deepen the Columbia River channel from Astoria inland to Portland, I joined with colleagues in my firm to develop another coalition that consisted of two parts.

The first was various business groups that shared the goal of a deeper channel, which would mean bigger ships could ply their way to inland ports and, thus, increase economic activity in region. This part of the coalition included various union groups, as well as businesses.

The second part of our coalition was to create a list of businesses in every county in the state that had relied, in the past, on a viable Port of Portland to ship goods out and receive goods in. They wanted to be able to rely on the Port again, so were very willing to coalesce around the major investment.

This illustrated that a deeper channel was not just a goal for the Port of Portland. It was a goal for a far deeper coalition – pardon my play on words — throughout the state of Oregon.

The result was that we obtained the money to deepen the channel. Along with funds from the State of Washington and the federal government, the channel is deeper today and producing the predicted economic benefits for the regional economy.

So, given these examples and others I could cite, do coalitions work and are they a good idea? I say yes, unequivocally and clearly.

Creating them, participating in them and using them to achieve results should be in the tool-kit of any good lobbyist.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

Oregon Senate Republicans are still on the lam and there is no way to see how this political tussle will end, though late word appears to be that Senate Democrats may not have the votes to pass the controversial cap-and-trade bill on their own.

If that is, in fact, the case, Republicans may decided to return to Salem, though some of them say need any agreement in writing so what one called a “head feint” does not work against their wishes to see cap-and-trade die.

The issue is controversial enough that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) showed up this week with a story that began on the front page summarizing the status. For one thing, the WSJ carried a photo of Senator Tim Knopp, R-Bend, as he stood in a campground in Idaho out of the reach of Oregon State police officers who had been dispatched to find Knopp and his colleagues.

It Republicans don’t return to provide a quorum (20 senators are necessary and, otherwise, the Democrats have “only” 18, and, though that is a super-majority, still not enough to act on the Senate floor), a number of pieces legislation will die.

Bills have to pass by June 30, the deadline, by law, for the session to end. If action is not taken by that date, the bills automatically due.

And, in one case – the so-called “cap and trade bill” — Republicans won’t care because they want that bill to die. Or at least find the in-charge Democrats to be more open to amendments the Republicans contend would protect rural Oregon.

The Rs call cap-and-trade a Portland centric bill that will mean economic harm for anything and anyone east of the Cascades.

Here, based on reporting by the Oregonian, are a few more facts about the walk-out:

Is it unusual is it for Oregon lawmakers in one party to flee the state to stop action on a bill?

During the last 20 years, there were two high-profile walk-outs prior to this session. In 2001, Oregon House Democrats left the Capitol and hid out for nearly a week to stop a vote on a Republican legislative redistricting bill. Since the governor was also a Democrat, House lawmakers did not have to worry that he would send state troopers after them.

The second incident was in 2007, when Senate Republicans denied Democrats a quorum in order to block a plan to convert $300 million in corporate tax refunds to a state rainy day fund. Senate President Peter Courtney dispatched state troopers to Oregon State University where then-Senators Frank Morse of Corvallis and Roger Beyer of Molalla were watching the Beavers’ opening game. Troopers chastised both men, but ultimately didn’t have to bring them back: Democrats were only one member shy of a quorum and then-Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, agreed to return to the floor.

Are Democrats refusing to listen to Republicans and compromise at all?

Republicans have repeated this line, but it may not be entirely accurate. Democrats have made significant concessions to specific industry groups, including electric and natural gas utilities and the state’s entire industrial sector. They’ve also added provisions to blunt the policy’s impact on low-income Oregonians. But they have voted down or refused to hear amendments – some of them from Republicans and others authored by industry groups — that they feel would remove enough teeth to make the legislation useless.

So, Senate Republicans – clearly in the minority by a current tally of 18 to 11 – believe they have been ignored, as have their constituents from Eastern Oregon. The only course left, they believe, is to run.

Are state troopers really going to surveil and handcuff lawmakers? How have troopers acted in this situation in past standoffs?

Oregon State Police have called absent Republican senators on their cell phones and asked them to return to the Capitol. However, troopers do not appear to have plans aggressively to track the missing lawmakers or slap handcuffs on any they find. Instead, a police spokesman said “patience and communication is and always will be our first, and preferred, option.”

Why are Republicans so insistent on and Democrats so averse to letting the people of Oregon decide this issue?

Republicans know their constituents largely oppose the carbon cap, and they suspect many unaffiliated and Democratic voters also won’t be excited about higher gas prices. They want the people to have a say.

Democrats want the system, which they say appropriately protects key Oregon industries and low-income people, to take effect as soon as possible, not wait years for voter enactment and subsequent implementation.

Also, Democrat Governor Kate Brown said she and Democrats in the Legislature were elected with a platform to pass cap-and-trade, so she wants to do that, not defer to a public vote.

Still, Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, announced today that Democrats don’t have the votes to act on cap-and-trade. Here’s how it works.

The Ds can lose only two seats to get to the required 16 and even that may be up for challenge on the basis that a tax increase bill, if that is what cap-and-trade includes, then a three-fifths majority would be required. That means all 18 Ds would have to vote for it.

If it is deemed not to be a tax, then 16 votes are necessary and that’s what Courtney said is lacking.

Whatever happens, the current shenanigans will be another blot on the record of the Oregon Legislature.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 leading Democrat candidate for president in 2020, former U.S. Senator and Vice President, Joe Biden, has come in for strong criticism recently from those running against him.

The issue?

He said that, when in the U.S Senate, he found a way to work with such colleagues as James Eastland, an avowed segregationist. Biden wanted produce compromise on issues in Congress – compromise, not on racist issues, but on other topics before the Senate Judiciary Committee which, back in the day, was chaired by Eastland

No would one say Biden is, himself, a segregationist, but the criticism was lodged nevertheless, no doubt in part by other Ds running for president who believe there is no alternative but to rake Biden over the coals, given his large polling lead.

Advance their own cause by tearing Biden down.

As one observer of all from my position in the cheap seats out West, I abhor the criticism Biden has received lately.

To me, all he said was that, in Congress, he tried to find middle ground by working with others, even if he disagreed wholly with their general views and background.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Ryan Clancy, now a strategist for the group “No Labels,” and a former speechwriter (not affiliated in any way with Biden’s current presidential campaign), put it this way.

Democrats, Give Biden a Break

The pile-on over James Eastland epitomizes everything that’s wrong with politics.

“Robert Byrd was the Democratic Senate majority leader from 1977-81 and again from 1987-89,” Clancy wrote. “He was also once in the Ku Klux Klan.

“What should we think of the admired and even iconic Democrat senators who worked with Byrd? Dined with him? Even said nice things about him? Ted Kennedy. Al Gore. George Mitchell. Bill Bradley. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Should they be discredited and tarred with the sins of their Senate colleague?

“It’s a question worth considering in light of the attacks on Joe Biden for saying at a fundraiser that he ‘got things done’ with two southern segregationist senators even though he vehemently disagreed with them on civil rights and other issues.”

Clancy says that “durable progress in Washington requires consensus, sometimes with people whose views you find objectionable. No doubt Biden would have been better off citing his bi-partisan work with someone like Bob Dole or Dick Lugar rather than Eastland.

“You could argue there was little good in a man like Eastland—that he wasn’t caricatured as a racist, but was one—and I’d agree. But when Biden arrived in the Senate in 1973, Eastland chaired the Judiciary Committee. To serve his constituents and the country, Biden had to forge working relationships with powerful senior colleagues.”

The problem is that Democrats talk about Republicans and Republicans talk about Democrats, not as fellow citizens to be debated, but, rather, as enemies to be destroyed. Increasingly, Clancy adds, the same thing – acrimony — is happening within the parties “as purists and pragmatists battle for primacy.”

“Citizens often prefer politics as performance art and never miss an opportunity to take something an opponent said, twist it and present it in the worst possible light.

The rule in politics these days is a cycle of outrage and denunciation that never ends and makes our government and our lives worse. It is no wonder Americans have such a low opinion of our politics and politicians.

For me, the shrinking middle ground – the shrinking ability to work together to solve the nation’s problems — signals that the future of America as a democracy is literally at stake.

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.

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube from Nuremberg to Budapest, impressions from the trip still arrive in my thoughts every day.

The most dominant one revolves around the incredible, hard-to-describe crimes of Adolph Hitler as he led Germany to try to conquer the world – or at least part of Europe — as well as try to exterminate an entire race of people, the Jews.

The huge, negative impression of Hitler was underlined at the start of our trip when my wife Nancy and I toured the Documentation Center and Zeppellin Field in Nuremberg where Hitler rallied Germans to follow his cause. The Center, which documents the rise and fall of Nazism (the last exhibit in the center chronicles the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials), is preserved to this day, at least in part, we were told by our tour guide, so the Germans of today remember the past and avoid falling into the Nazi trap again.

Good for them, I say.

The Nazi atrocities also was called to mind as we left Budapest for the U.S. on June 6, the 75^th anniversary of D Day. We weren’t there for the events to commemorate the events of the Day in 1944, but the events recalled to our minds our previous trip to Normandy where we stood on the bluff looking down at the Omaha Beach – as German soldiers did in 1944 – where 90 per cent of the first wave of Americans were either killed or maimed.

Still, the landings at Omaha and other beaches were successful – if war can ever be termed “successful” – and signaled the end of Hitler’s Germany. Unfortunately, Hitler killed himself in his bunker as the end drew near, which meant he would not stand trail for his war crimes.

Well, on to a few other random impressions of our Danube River Trip – impressions that, thankfully, don’t revolve around war.

Smoking/Nearly half of the population smokes as they walk down a street. Plus, if you sit outside in a restaurant, often worth doing in America, you contend with smoke all of the time in Europe. Tobacco companies must love Europe!

Topography/In and around the Danube, the land looks and feels much like Oregon, with rolling hills and, on occasion, the Alps in the background.

Vineyards/In many areas, grape crops are built on hills, but in contrast to some areas of France, the rows run in a horizontal direction. In France, they often run vertically up and down steep slopes.

Communism vs. freedom of thought and enterprise/Our tour guide in Prague – before we boarded our ship in Nuremberg – said she loves the fact that the Czech Republic threw off communism. A democracy-of-sorts in the Republic allows her, she said, to think on her own, talk on her own and be creative. By contrast, her mother, now 73 years of age and still living in Prague, wants a return to Communism so “she can be taken care of in her advancing years.”

Number of river ships/The numbers we heard sounded crazy. Ten years ago, there were about 240 ships. Nor there are about 1,200. And the total has contributed to tourism along the Danube and other rivers.

Thoughts on the boat accident on the Danube in Budapest/The number of ships also holds the potential for accidents on a heavily traveled river like the Danube. About a week before we arrived in Budapest, a daily-tour boat collided with a river cruise ship and the smaller boat went down quickly, with the loss of life numbering nearly 30. Still, we were allowed to dock in Budapest, which made for a good last day in Hungary.

Car speeds in Bavaria and Germany/On major highways, there is no limit on speed. Go as fast as you want.

Type of trucks in Europe/Most commercial hauling trucks in Europe have straight fronts, not the bulbous noses of American 18-wheelers. Better, I guess, to play their way around often-narrow roads. American truck drivers might not survive in Europe.

Trucks not allowed on the road on weekends and on “bank holiday”/We also learned that truck are not allowed – at least usually – on roads on weekends. For that reason, there were often a huge number of trucks parked on what we could call “truck stops” in the U.S.

Different sequence of stop-lights (yellow, green, red)/If we were driving in Europe, we would have to get used to a different lighting sequence. For us in the U.S., a yellow light indicates that red is next. In Europe, yellow shows up as lead for a green light. Not a big deal, but interesting that, as in the case of many other things, the U.S. wanted to be different than Europe.

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

For the life of me – a veteran political junkie – I cannot figure out “our” president, one Donald Trump.

He conducts himself with discord and disagreement every day of his life. And the disagreement often is with himself.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank made that point recently.

“Only a man who is, like, really smart could perform mental gymnastics at the level President Trump has attained over the past few days.

“On Saturday, Trump declared that the New York Times committed a ‘virtual act of treason’ by reporting on a U.S. cyber campaign against Russia.

“Mere seconds later, he proclaimed that the supposedly treasonous report was ‘ALSO, NOT TRUE!’”

While I don’t make as much money as Milbank skewering Trump – in fact, it is zero for me – I think Milbank has a very good point.

The way I put it is that Trump usually believes his own lies. He utters one lie one minute, then utters an opposite lie the next. To him, both are true.

All of this came together for me as Trump kicked-off his campaign for re-election in Orlando, Florida, a nod to the fact that his campaign strategists believe he has to win Florida to be re-elected.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column showed up with a story reporting that “the fact-checkable claims were different this time around, but history repeated itself nonetheless. Trump’s campaign speech kick-off speech in Orlando was littered with the same false or misleading claims he has so often repeated as president.

“Phony numbers on trade. Unfounded claims about immigrants. False statements about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Fishy economic statistics and wild exaggerations about his presidential accomplishments.”

Further, on the day of Trump’s visit, the hometown paper, the Orlando Sentinel, published an editorial announcing that it would not endorse him for reelection.

“After 2½ years we’ve seen enough,” the paper said. “Enough of the chaos, the division, the schoolyard insults, the self-aggrandizement, the corruption, and especially the lies. So many lies — from white lies to whoppers — told out of ignorance, laziness, recklessness, expediency or opportunity.”

Now, I add that the Fact Checker column and the Orlando Sentinel’s announcement will no doubt infuriate Trumpians. They believe “their guy” is fighting against the liberals on the other side and, no matter what he says, he is right and they will support him.

In fact, the Trumpians thrive on the fact that he doesn’t go along with the usual conventions and norms of being president. He not only counters those norms, he runs them into the ground.

Now, I admit that the term “conventions and norms” sounds like old school. Better, Trumpians would say, to have a president who flouts the conventions and norms because he wants to get stuff done – stuff Trump supporters want done.

Below are a few examples of Trump’s duplicity based, Milbank writes, on what F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

Trump’s ability to function is a matter of much dispute, but if the ability to hold opposing thoughts in mind is a measure of intelligence, Trump is a very stable genius indeed. Nobody contradicts himself as forcefully, fluently and frequently as Trump does.

Witness a list from Milbank:

• Last December, Trump declared that “we have defeated ISIS.” The very next day he said Russia, Iran and others “will have to fight ISIS” without us.
• In recent weeks, Trump has said Robert Mueller conducted his probe in an honorable way and his findings offered full vindication and exoneration. During roughly the same period, Trump also promoted   the contrary idea that Mueller’s report is “total bullshit,” not to mention “fabricated” and “pure political garbage”
• Last month, Trump pronounced China’s Huawei “very dangerous” as a military and security threat; in the next sentence, he said this dangerous threat should be included in a trade deal.
• Trump earlier this year declared an emergency on the border because of a migration “crisis”; the same day, he said, “I didn’t need to do this” — and, two months earlier, he had boasted that the “border is tight.”
• Early on in his term, Trump proclaimed, in all caps, “MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL.” Exactly 11 minutes later, he complained that the border wall was in jeopardy because Democrats provided “NOTHING” to pay for it.’
• In December, Trump said he would be “proud” to accept responsibility for shutting the federal government to pay for the border wall; soon thereafter, he announced that, “The Democrats now own the shutdown.”
• In January 2018, he told a bi-partisan group of lawmakers he would sign any immigration deal they sent him. The next day, he said he would not sign such a bill without funding for his wall.
• In February 2018, Trump proposed comprehensive legislation with gun-safety measures, saying “it would be nice if we could add everything onto it.” Twenty minutes later, he said he supported a piecemeal approach.
• In June 2018, he tweeted an all-caps call: “HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD PASS THE STRONG BUT FAIR IMMIGRATION BILL.” Three days later, he tweeted: “I never pushed the Republicans in the House to vote for the Immigration Bill.”

I could go on. There is more here than anyone would ever have thought possible. Which underlines one more unfortunate fact about Trump – he is so duplicitous that it is impossible to count the ways he skewers facts and makes up information to achieve his ends.