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.

From Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty: “Republicans don’t know how to take yes for an answer.

“For weeks, they dutifully echoed President Trump, baying that the House’s ongoing impeachment investigation is a ‘witch hunt’ and a ‘sham.’

“They have complained that the House never took a formal vote on proceeding with the inquiry (though there is no requirement for one), that it was being conducted in secret (though open hearings are promised), and that the president is not being offered an opportunity to respond to his accusers (though he does it constantly on his Twitter feed).

“On Thursday, they will have the vote they demanded (of course, now the vote is over and the impeachment won), along with a road map for how the inquiry will go from here.

“The procedure as outlined strikes a reasonable balance between the need to collect evidence and testimony, some of which must be done initially behind closed doors, and the transparency necessary for the public to have confidence that something as grave as the impeachment of a president is done fairly.”

Comment: Tumulty criticizes House Republicans for their ham-handed action to infiltrate a House impeachment hearing, using cell phones (which was against policy in the secure hearing room), and, incredibly, ordering pizza as they stopped the hearing.

They did so even as many of their Republican colleagues were members of the three committees holding the hearing and, thus, were already in the room as the stunt occurred.

Tumulty makes this excellent bottom-line point: “Nonetheless, Republicans continue to howl about process. The reason: It allows them to avoid talking about the actual substance of the allegations against Trump.”

From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “When Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, ‘But he’s got the generals around him.’

“His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, un-led army.”

Comment: Noonan is right to outline a key difference in the Trump presidency. When it started, accomplished generals signed up to run important national security operations. Now, all of them have left, knowing that Trump cannot run anything as he veers off repeatedly on more Twitter feeds, plus take international actions (read, the retreat from Syria) that risk America’s future.

From David Leonhardt in the New York Times: “Personal attacks don’t hurt him (Trump). Substantive ones do.

“House Democrats are doing the right thing by pursuing impeachment against Trump. But it does create a political quandary for their party.

“Democrats have been most successful against Trump when they have focused on his unpopular policies, as they did during the 2017 fight over ObamaCare and the 2018 mid-terms. They have been least successful when focusing on his outrageous behavior, as Hillary Clinton did in her 2016 campaign.

“Trump’s supporters seem to take his personality as a given and aren’t moved by complaints about it. Some fraction of them, however, can evidently be swayed by his failure to live up to his policy promises.

“Impeachment unavoidably returns the focus to the cartoon version of Trump, the gleefully norm-breaking president who resembles no other. The trial is also likely to end in acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump will then claim vindication, and Republicans will deride the exercise as a vindictive waste of time and money.

Comment: Leonhardt, in a piece that was clearly labeled “opinion,” emphasizes a useful distinction between substance and Trump’s personality. Go after the first, not the latter.

On the Trump personality issues, I agree with Leonhardt – it appears that Trump supporters always give him a pass on person failures because he does what they want him to do.

I have come to the conclusion that, given Trump’s clear excesses on substance, there was no real choice but for Democrat leaders to begin impeachment. Even if doing so would not result in final conviction in the U.S. Senate, thus allowing Trump to claim vindication in the 2020 election.

Sometimes it is important to rest on honesty and integrity, not bombast.

It is time for leaders in Congress – yes, there are some on both sides of the political aisle – to throw Trump out of office and get back to the important business of governing from the middle.