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.

Why would I choose to comment about the to-ing and fro-ing in Washington, D.C. over the prospect of subjecting President Donald Trump to impeachment, with, at least it could be said, an uncertain end to that process?

Why, indeed?

Because, from my post in the cheap seats out West, I know just enough to be dangerous, so might as well go on record…plus, I’ll feel better if I do.

I was struck this morning by two views of impeachment provided by two regular columnists in the Washington Post – Hugh Hewitt and Michael Gerson.

From Hewitt: “Which is essentially the way House Democrats (mis)handled the guaranteed-to-get-him-impeached rough transcript of the phone call in July between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. Many Democrats, egged on by a complicit Greek chorus — media artists formerly known as “the echo chamber” — were stuck with on Wednesday. Out they marched, declaring the empty vault of the transcript a bill of particulars against Trump that would require the drafting of articles of impeachment and their immediate passage not just by a select committee but by the whole House.”

From Gerson: “By his own admission, the president of the United States urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open a criminal investigation of the son of a political rival. Trump denies that this request involved a quid pro quo. But with Ukraine engaged in conflict with Russian-backed separatists, and with $250 million in U.S. military aid being held up (at the time) for “review,” the threat did not need to be explicit to be palpable and powerful. A mob boss doesn’t need to issue threats personally to be feared and obeyed. And that is what the Trump presidency increasingly resembles — a criminal family sending out their slimy factotum (a part played enthusiastically by Rudolph W. Giuliani) to “fix” what needs fixing.”

First, kudos to the Washington Post for carrying both views. That’s exactly what should happen in America – sharing views, even if the views compete. The Post’s lead editorial this morning said it was past time for impeachment just as the other national paper I read, the Wall Street Journal, took the other side, saying impeachment wasn’t warranted on the basis of Trumps phone call with Ukraine where there was “no specific quid pro quo.”

So, who is right?

I’ll leave the editorials to others.

But, for what it’s worth, in the case of Hewitt and Gerson, I side with Gerson because, as he put it, “The Constitution assumes that the president will interact with foreign governments to seek the interests and express the values of the United States.

“With Trump, nothing decent can be assumed. By making corrupt personal requests of a foreign power, the president is not only misusing $250 million in leverage, he is misusing the presidency itself. His actions may constitute bribery, extortion and/or the violation of campaign-finance laws.

“But his breach of public trust is ultimately a more serious matter. Trump has violated his oath of office by using his office for selfish gain.

“Here, we need to be clear. Treating the presidency in this fashion is not only corrupt, but unpatriotic. Trump is not only a preening, prating fool; he has set his own interests above the interests of the nation. He has replaced love of country with a kind of self-love that dishonors the institution he leads.”

The reality is that, as Trump and his allies work to defend him, the impeachment process could work to the benefit of his re-election chances in 2020. Such is political life these days.

Trumpians will assume that the Democrats are out to get Trump because they still are not willing to admit that he won the presidency in 2016. So, they believe, it is the Ds who are behaving erratically and it is Trump who will benefit.

I hold this bottom-line view: If the impeachment process works to Trump’s benefit, it is still a process that must proceed despite that possibility. The character of this country is too important to let a scofflaw like Trump get away with “setting his own interests above the interests of the nation” and doing so, not as a matter of strategy, but as a clown in the Oval Office who assumes that he is always right, no matter the subject or the case.

He deserves to be held to account for the way he has continued to dishonor the country he leads – or, at least supposedly, leads.

So, let the process begin and let Trump defend himself…if he can.