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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The words in the headline to this blog are appropriate.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who appears to be able to argue strenuously for any side of any issue as long as someone will pay him, made a claim in the Senate impeachment hearings that sparked the words – jaw dropping, audacious, startling.

Even to my eye – someone out West who apparently has nothing better to do than watch impeachment television – the Dershowitz claim defied understanding.

He said:

• Presidents can do nearly anything so long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest.
• If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
• I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was.   If I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be an impeachable offense.

Really?

Sounds a lot like Donald Trump himself.

So, in this case, it was absolutely acceptable for Trump to ask a foreign nation to intervene in what is supposed to be a fair and open election for the next president in this country. He wanted the foreign intervention to rig the election his way.

“Dershowitz’ argument was beyond absurd,” said New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand. “I thought he made absolutely no sense — because he essentially said that if President Trump believes his election is for the good of the American people that he could do whatever he wants. He is wrong, and I think he’s made a laughable argument that undermines the president’s case.”

Even late night comics entered the case.

The Washington Post reported this:

“Jaws dropped across the United States on Wednesday as comics, Democrat politicians, legal scholars and TV personalities came together in collective disbelief at the audacious claims of presidential immunity made by President Trump’s impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

“The most frequent analogies — drawing on Dershowitz’s argument that presidents could do almost anything as long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest — were to monarchs, dictators and former president Richard M. Nixon.

“Alan Dershowitz un-impeached Richard Nixon today,” tweeted John Dean, the former White House counsel under Nixon, whose testimony helped lead to the 37th president’s resignation.

“This is inane. The president could threaten people (including with our army) unless they voted for him? Could order a break-in of DNC headquarters?” tweeted Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. solicitor general during the Obama administration. “I’m not sure even kings had such powers.”

Comedy Central host Trevor Noah picked up on the monarchy theme as well: “This whole idea seems more like a monarchy or something.”

For me, it’s one thing for all the president’s men to advocate on his behalf. It’s quite another to throw out the U.S. Constitution and contend that the president should be given a pass on what is a clear and mind-boggling action – Trump tainted the 2020 election, which ought to give all of us, as voters, great pause.

Just wait, he’ll do it again and again until the election.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For three years now, I have been looking for a way to describe Donald Trump.

He stands, I posit, as the worst president in U.S. history because he functions in the Oval Office as a reality TV show host with no limits on what he says or does.

He even says he could shoot someone in Times Square and no one could touch him.  He adds that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him authority to do what he wants without limits.

Does that mean that everything he does, happens to do, or occurs on his watch is wrong?  No.

It’s just that he is looking for credit, not the good result for ALL Americans.

Now, one more point.  This blob does not on focus either of two or three major issues currently roiling this country – impeachment, the near-war with Iran or the so-called peace deal for Israel and the Palestinians (which struck some observers as more of a PR stunt than a peace overture).

Rather, this blog focuses on the character of the person in the White House, for character still matters in politics.

The basic label that fits Trump is this:  He is a narcissist.

Everything he says or does can be explained by this basic fact:  It serves HIS interest.

According to Dan P. McAdams, psychology professor at Northwestern University, “Senator Ted Cruz once described Donald Trump as a narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen.”

That characterization, McAdams continues, echoes what many psychological researchers and therapists have long concluded. Although the American Psychiatric Association strongly discourages mental-health professionals from assigning mental-illness labels to public figures, some clinicians have even suggested that President Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD.

McAdams goes on:

“But Trump is stranger than any diagnostic category can convey. Narcissism is a psychological construct with profound implications for an individual’s well-being and interpersonal relationships. Personality and social psychologists have done hundreds of studies examining narcissistic tendencies, revealing certain patterns of behavior and outcome.

“In some ways, Trump fits those patterns perfectly. But in at least one crucial respect, he deviates.”

Back in June 2016, McAdams in the Atlantic that “narcissists often wear out their welcome.”:

“Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity in the short term.  As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant, they may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status.

“But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome.  Over time, people become annoyed, if not infuriated, by their self-centeredness.  When narcissists begin to disappoint those they once dazzled, their descent can be especially precipitous.  There is still truth in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall.”

Nearly three years into Trump’s presidency, how does this generalization about narcissism hold up for him?  On the one hand, many of the people who have staffed Trump’s administration have learned that he is not the “stable genius” he claims to be.  Disappointed and beaten down, they have left in droves.

On the other hand, Trump has retained the loyal backing of many voters despite scandal, outrage, and chaos.  How is this possible? Why has Trump followed the predictable course for narcissism in one way, alienating many who have served in his administration, and defied expectations in another way, by continuing to attract an adoring core?

A real-life narcissist manages to take his eyes off himself just long enough to find out if others are looking at him.  And if the narcissist has admirers, this makes him feel good.  It temporarily boosts his self-esteem.

Use the following from McAdams to assess Trump.

“Research shows that people high in narcissism tend to show more anger and hostility when challenged or insulted, compared with people low in narcissism. They show sharper mood swings, oscillating between exuberance and negativity.

“As they rage against those who cross them, they make enemies. Many narcissists rise to positions of leadership in various kinds of groups because group members are initially impressed with their confidence and strength, but research shows that many of them turn out to be bad leaders, incompetent and unethical.”

That’s Trump.  Agree with him – in effect, bow before his genius – and then he will say you are great.

Disagree with him and you’ll be the subject of derogatory tweets as he justifies own greatness.

Unfortunately, in the impeachment process, it will not be possible to convict Trump of being a narcissist.

I wish it would be possible because there is a very real question about whether we can survive as a representative democracy led by a person who always equates his own interests with the country’s interests – and they are rarely the same.

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 would not be appropriate to mark the passing of the consummate journalist Jim Lehrer without emphasizing the solid “rules” – call them “advice” — he left behind.

Lehrer, the long-time host of the PBS News Hour, died last week at the age of 85.

As a former journalist – yes, I worked for newspapers back in the day when they were more alive and well than they are today in this social media age – Lehrer’s rules make eminent sense to me. Plus, following them would make for better journalism, which in age of wackos on the right and left has degenerated into name-calling and innuendo.

The Lehrer rules:

• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Do not distort, lie, slant, or hype.
• Do not falsify facts or make up quotes.
• Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.
• Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label them as such.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
• Do not broadcast profanity or the end result of violence unless it is an integral and necessary part of the story and/or crucial to understanding the story.
• Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is.
• Journalists who are reckless with facts and reputations should be disciplined by their employers.
• My viewers have a right to know what principles guide my work and the process I use in their practice.
• I am not in the entertainment business.

Just imagine if journalism today were to abide by these solid rules.

For one thing, we would not have to listen to Sean Hannity – and that, alone, would be a godsend.

But, more generally, we would have a better news product, one on which we could rely as every-day Americans who don’t have seats of power or influence that would give us insider information.

So, to honor Lehrer, I wish for a return to the principles he enunciated as unlikely as that may be.

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.

Whatever you think about the Trump impeachment process in Washington, D.C., if you think about it at all, Trump’s lawyers have gone over-board in defending the president.

They are not just advocating for his interests. They are not dealing with the facts of the case.  They are manifestly lying to curry favor from and for their boss, even as they continue to work to fool the public.

The fact is that there is a code of conduct for lawyers and they should be held to account for their falsehoods.

I say this with a background as a registered lobbyist where I – and many others like me – lived within an ethical code, one key element of which was not to lie. If we did, we would pay a penalty, not to mention that our individual credibility would crater.

Here is a summary of what the Trump lawyers want you to believe:

Issue #1: Strip away the name-calling, lies, procedural complaints and conspiracy theories, and you are left with the core of President Trump’s impeachment defense: Everyone does it.

Answer: No they don’t.

As Washington Post columnist Max Boot put it last week, “This premise may be alluring to cynical Trump supporters who are convinced that all politicians are crooks. But it’s simply false. There is no evidence that any president in U.S. history has done what Trump is accused of doing.

“Trump is being impeached because there was no public purpose for his Ukraine policy. It was not in the interest of the United States to hold up military aid to force Ukraine to announce an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden. It was only in the interest of the Trump campaign.”

Issue #2: Lead Trump lawyer Pat Cippolone has maintained that Trump advocates were kept out of House Intelligence Committee hearings.

Answer: False. Many Republicans were in the hearing room, which was supposed to be held behind closed doors – and even those doors were abused by Republicans who entered inappropriately and disrupted the proceedings within eyesight of Republican colleagues inside the room.

Issue #3: Trump’s legal team began its defense last Saturday with a version of one of Trump’s favorite tweets: Read the transcript.

Answer: So, do it. Read the transcript – which is not actually a transcript, but, rather, a summary of the call — and you come to clear conclusion: Trump wanted to make Ukraine complicit in an effort to rig the 2020 election in his favor.

Issue #4: Trump’s lawyers said there was no quid pro quo in his call with the Ukraine president.

Answer: Again, read the transcript and consider the under-oath testimony of Executive Branch officials who listened in on the call. It’s patently obvious that Trump wanted something from Ukraine and would hold funds for Ukraine until he got results – results that benefitted his own election. That’s a quid pro quo.

Issue #5: Trump’s lawyers contended that President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not know the security assistance was paused until the end of August.

Answer: No. Of course Ukraine was aware of the hold.  A now-former senior Ukrainian official, working in Zelensky’s administration at that point, indicated that she was aware of the hold by late July. Catherine Croft, a State Department official, testified that she was surprised at how quickly her Ukrainian colleagues learned about the hold soon after it was known in the administration.

Issue #6: Trump’s lawyers said there was no issue because, in the end, security assistance flowed without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

Answer: Well, the fact is that the aid was only released after attention had been drawn publicly to the fact that it was being withheld. House Democrats had launched an investigation into the hold. The Washington Post editorial board had explicitly connected the hold to the desired investigations. Trump had already been briefed on a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower in which that connection was mentioned as part of a broad campaign to pressure Ukraine.

The aid was released only after Trump got caught.

Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt made a key point this morning when he wrote this:

“The White House lawyer told senators that, after hearing the facts of the case, you will find that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.

“In other words,” Hiatt added, “to side with the president and allow Americans their choice this November, senators must endorse the preposterous — and also threatening-to-democracy — notion that the president’s behavior is entirely acceptable.”

It’s not. And, what’s more, Trump’s lawyers want us to wait until the 2020 election to do anything about the deception. So, we wait until an election Trump already has tainted and no doubt will continue to taint because, in the end, all that matters is his own interests.

And, as a narcissist, he believes his own interests and country’s interests are identical. No.

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.

When it comes to politics, one of my favorite words is “civility.”

It’s often what’s missing in today’s definition of politics which, spurred by President Donald Trump, rests on dissension and innuendo, not civility and common ground.

That’s why one of my favorite quotes is from General Colin Powell when, several years ago, he declined to run for president because, he said, ”he bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Imagine what Powell would say today.

So it was that, yesterday, I came across a thought-provoking column in the Washington Post by Steven Beschloss, author of “The Gunman and His Mother,” and a professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

His posit: Given the huge issues at stake in today’s politics, civility may not be the highest goal.

“There is no question,” Beschloss wrote, “that the use of uncivil language by politicians, commentators and journalists has escalated. I count myself among those who have felt reluctantly obliged to choose increasingly vivid words to accurately capture and respond to a growing picture of criminality and corruption and an increasing awareness that the president of the United States acts with a level of anti-democratic malignancy and cruelty I fear puts our institutions, global alliances and vulnerable populations in increasing danger.”

Using a down-to-earth image, Beschloss continues: “But if you believe your house is on fire and your family faces death and destruction, is it appropriate to engage in pleasant and polite tones when speaking to the alleged arsonist and his accomplices? Is that not the time to speak and act with clarity to spur action and put out the fire?”

To illustrate his point, Beschloss points to the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. There, he wondered if Supreme Court Justice John
Roberts did enough when he reminded advocates to avoid language “not conducive to civil discourse.”

He also reminded lawyers for both sides that they were speaking the well of the “world’s great deliberative body” (I ask if that title is really appropriate today), so they should watch their words and their conduct.

By his reminders, Beschloss asks whether Roberts “helped shift the focus from damning facts.”

“Of course, the answer is not to toss aside decorum or the basic process of governance, one in which elected officials treat each other with courtesy and decency as they hammer out their differences over issues of the day.

“There is a real danger that when each side further inflames the other, matters may slip out of control. Finding points of mutual understanding can seem increasingly impossible, accelerating the toxic division and making the very notion of moderation lose all relevance.

“But when civility means treating both sides as equal, when a mind-bending onslaught of lies (The Washington Post counts over 16,000 ;false or misleading claims’ by Trump in his first three years in office) is expected to be met with courtesy, a demand for civility risks becoming an instrument of power by the majority party to neutralize or even silence criticism and the critics.”

As provided by the Washington Post, here is additional background on Roberts’ comments from Senate rostrum:

“Well past midnight on the first day of President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial this week, after nearly 12 hours of increasingly acerbic comments by the House managers prosecuting the case and the White House lawyers defending the president, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. interjected.

“In his typically calm tone, the presiding Roberts reminded both sides that they were ‘addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body.’

“He said the Senate had ‘earned that title because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.’ He even offered a charming anecdote about a 1905 Senate impeachment trial in which one of the managers dared to use the word ‘pettifogging’ in that hallowed chamber. ‘I don’t think we need to aspire to that high of a standard,’ Roberts said, musing over the objection to a term that meant overemphasizing petty details, ‘but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.’”

On its face, Beschloss writes, the admonishment sounded like a good and healthy thing, an encouragement for respect, a reminder of Senate history — not only a call for civil discourse, but a gently delivered act of civility itself.

But Roberts’s words, however, “failed to take into account the backdrop: A deeply partisan and increasingly authoritarian political dynamic that has catapulted the country into a moment of crisis. In this context, the smooth veneer of civility, rather than being uplifting, might actually facilitate the downward spiral. In this context, civility is dangerous, a weapon that serves both as a shield, covering up malign acts, and a sword, parried at the opponent who dares to be ‘uncivil’ and so shifting the focus away from the true danger.”

Beschloss expects more of Roberts than most think Roberts will provide as he seeks to remain above the fray.

Still, with all that is at stake, I wish for civility. Courteous discourse is the only way our government will survive and find the center – the smart middle ground – on a host of issues that threaten to drive us apart, not bring us together.

In this way, just call me PolyAnna.

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.

A key plank in the platform of Democrats running for president is to have government do much more for all Americans. In fact, dispensing government largesse is almost the entire platform.

Socialism? Yes.

Can we afford it? No.

Are the proposals fair? No.

A fascinating aspect of this came to light over the weekend as Senator Elizabeth Warren, even while the impeachment process was grinding away in Congress, found time to attend an event in Grimes, Iowa, only a couple weeks before the Iowa Caucus vote.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “a man approached Warren and said, I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter’s getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans.

“Then the shoe drops. Am I going to get my money back? the man asks.”

As part of her “government can and should do anything platform,” Warren has proposed to cancel $640 billion in student loans, up to $50,000 a person.

She says this would help 42 million Americans. But, the Wall Street Journal avers, “there’s no provision to reimburse the millions of others who worked hard, saved money, and put themselves or their children through college.”

In response to Warren’s comment that he would not get his money back, the man retorted: “So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money, and those of us who did the right thing get screwed. My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than I did, but I worked a double shift, worked extra. My daughter’s worked since she was 10.”

On the stump, the Journal reported that Warren had no answer to the man’s challenge.

Later, she rallied with this comment: “We build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social Security because we didn’t start it last week for you, or last month for you?”

I suppose that’s decent answer, but it doesn’t convince me of anything.

Most of the D proposals – health care, student debt, “green buildings” – all rest on government doing more. Little attention is paid to the cost of the proposals, nor more basically, to the benefit of individual enterprise and effort.

Plus, where individual enterprise and effort has occurred, there is no recognition or reward, just a penalty.

Makes me continue to want someone – I don’t care about party affiliation – who will campaign from the center, arguing for a balance between the role of government and role of the individual.

Too much to hope for you, you might say. Probably. But hope perseveres as we head toward the 2020 election.

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.

This, remember, is one of three departments I run as director with a free hand to do what I want.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Just Saying (the latter of which is not open very often, but allows me to cite incredibly stupid statements by a variety of public officials, regardless of political party or standing).

With the impeachment process as a backdrop in Congress – by the way, I wonder how many regular Americans are watching? – there are many opportunities for good quotes to cite.

FROM COLUMNIST MICHAEL GERSON IN THE WASHINGTON POST: “It is another of President Trump’s dubious achievements to turn the ultimate constitutional check on presidential abuses of power into an utter farce.

“Watching Republican senators complain that there is ‘nothing new’ in the case made by House impeachment managers, while they are actively opposing the introduction of new evidence and new testimony, is confirmation of barefaced bad faith.

“In this matter, elected Republicans are mainly serving, not the president, and certainly not the republic, but themselves. Having decided that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for conviction, they realize that the presentation of a full and compelling case would convict them of servility and institutional surrender. So a quick and dirty Senate trial is the best way to limit the exposure of their malpractice.”

Comment: As usual, Gerson is right on with his analysis and conclusion. Senate Republicans don’t want a real trial; they want to cover-up the president’s cover-up. I hope history judges them harshly – and, make no mistake, as another columnist, Peggy Noonan wrote this morning in the Wall Street Journal, HISTORY is watching the charade in Congress.

FROM COLUMNIST JENNIFER RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST: “Trump’s techniques are spreading. Take as an example Pat Cipollone’s (he’s one of Trump’s lawyers) opening statement in the impeachment trial. It was remarkable for the number of times he used the words ‘ridiculous’ and ‘outrageous.’

“This was a revealing detail. It didn’t matter that, in between those words, he strung together a series of misleading statements. No one would follow it all, but what they would take away were two words: ‘Ridiculous’ and ‘outrageous.’

“Such is the rhetoric of the conspiracy theorist. The opportunity to speak is a vehicle for a message. The words in between the message don’t matter much. All that matters is the chance to repeat the basic message frequently. Obama — no birth certificate; Obama — no birth certificate. Hunter — corrupt; Hunter — corrupt. Impeachment — ridiculous; impeachment — ridiculous.”

Comment: Rubin is right to heap derision on Cipollone and other Trump lawyers. They, of course, are entitled to advocate for their client, but to utter outright falsehoods? No. As lawyers, they should be upbraided for their conduct.

The clearest example was when Cipollone alleged that Republicans were not allowed in House Intelligence Committee hearings during the impeachment process. Wrong. Republicans were there and Cipollone knows it.

But, like Trump, truth is no barometer for what he says.

MORE FROM RUBIN: “There is actually an obvious and possibly accurate defense that no Republican senator dare advance. It goes like this: The president has never understood that there is a difference between his political/personal interests and national security.

“Trump has a narcissistic personality so he cannot intentionally betray the country for his own benefit because he thinks they are one and the same. He is also highly ignorant and malleable, so he will believe any illogical conspiracy theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin advances and/or that serves his interests.

“No matter how many times he was told that Ukraine did not interfere with our election, or that aid to Ukraine was in the United States’ interest, or that he could not stop aid in violation of law, he could not mentally process such information.

“He believed that advisers who told him such things were weak or out to get him. In other words, Trump is so mentally and emotionally defective, he cannot understand the import of his actions or concepts such as right vs. wrong, true vs. false and personal vs. national interests.

“As for obstruction, his lawyer told him to refuse to give up anything, so he simply took that advice.”

COMMENT: True again. Trump is the epitome of the narcissist. It is only what he thinks and wants that matters. U.S. national interests 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 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.

There is a notion around that the impeachment process under way in Washington, D.C. will not claim a wide television audience because it is so, well, boring.

Perhaps and that may, in fact, be the intent for how Senate Republicans have designed the process to support “their” president, Donald Trump. Long hours. Late evenings. Limits on media access. Etc.

But, for me, a political junkie, the reality is this: I have made time to watch the impeachment process.

Not a strange admission for me because I spent more than 40 years in a career devoted to politics — from reporting on it, to helping to run it, to lobbying in and around it.

So, for me, the impeachment process is a study in one of the most serious political processes for this country, one the founders set out with specific intent, not to mention incredible foresight.

A few perceptions about the process so far:

1. TRUMP HAS BEEN IMPEACHED: That inescapable fact is that President Donald Trump has been impeached, an action taken against only three other presidents in the history of this country.

Impeachment is like an indictment in court – it is not a conviction. But, still, impeachment will be a stain on the presidency of Trump, one I say he richly deserves.

2. THE CLOWNS WHO REPRESENT THE WHITE HOUSE: White House lawyers have conducted themselves with a lack of class – not to mention a lack of accuracy – as they have stood in the well of the U.S. Senate chamber to defend their boss.

It should be no surprise that the lawyers representing a president who has made more than 16,000 false statements since taking office should resort to their own lies — and it won’t matter to the president’s die-hard supporters.

Here’s the way Washington Post columnist Max Boot put it in today’s edition:

“White House Counsel Pat Cipollone claimed on Tuesday that, ‘Not even Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF’ — referring to the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in which the House Intelligence Committee conducted depositions of witnesses.

“False. The 48 Republican members of the three committees involved in impeachment proceedings had access to the basement SCIF.

“Cipollone also repeated the absurd claim that Schiff ‘manufactured a false version’ of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.

“False. Schiff did not deceive anyone about a partial transcript that had already been made public. Schiff said at the time, ‘Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates.’”

Making his own contribution to this blizzard of hokum, another White House lawyer, Jay Sekulow, claimed that “the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … denied the right to access evidence … and denied the right to have counsel present at hearings.”

Again, Boot writes: “False. The president was offered a chance to have his lawyers participate in House proceedings and declined to take it.”

3. WHAT’S THE DEFINTION OF ”HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?:   Much has been written about this, including a claim from some that the phrase must encompass an actual crime based on a statutory violation.

Not true.

According to Boot: “But these are relatively inconsequential whoppers (the previous ones uttered by Cippilone and Sekulow) compared with the biggest lie of all.

“This is the oft-repeated claim that a president can only be impeached for breaking the law — not for abuse of office. Not even Jonathan Turley, the star Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing (and a law professor at Georgetown University), is buying it.

“He wrote in Wednesday’s edition of The Post: ‘It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution. While framers did not want terms such as ‘maladministration’ in the standard as dangerously too broad, they often spoke of impeachable conduct in non-criminal terms.’”

4. AND THE WORLD’S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY?: That’s what the Senate often has been called, but the title often struck me as an overstatement, if not an oxymoron.

Most of the time senators head to the chamber to speak on this bill or that bill, but almost no other senators are there to listen. Cameras are positioned so as to avoid showing the empty chamber. Of course, senators have to show up when the time comes to vote.

For impeachment, the rules require senators to be in the chamber, if not in their assigned seats, at all times. We’ll see if, in the end, it matters.

The Senate is not likely to convict Trump (though I say it should), but at least current processes require them to be in their seats and give the appearance of listening.

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.

Coincident with the start of the Trump impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, a new book has been published which provides an accurate portrait of the disconnected person who occupies the Oval Office.

By Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig, the book portrays Donald Trump as erratic and, at critical times, “dangerously uninformed.”

Do tell.

That’s the way Trump has struck me all along during the first three years of his presidency, which resemble more a reality TV show than the top political office in the land.

And that is due to Trump, who accepts no conventions of the presidency, plus is too bored to read any briefing materials supplied by staff. Plus, in many cases, those staff function more as sycophants than experienced government hands.

Further, this from the Washington Post as editorial writers as they observed the start of an impeachment defense that “destroys guardrails on the presidency.”

“Senate Republicans on Tuesday were laying the groundwork for a truncated trial of President Trump that would be a perversion of justice. Proposals by Democrats to obtain critical evidence were voted down. Unless several senators change their positions, votes to acquit Trump on the House’s charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress could come as soon as next week without any testimony by witnesses or review of key documents.

“That would be unprecedented compared with previous presidential impeachments. It would gravely damage the only mechanism the Constitution provides for checking a rogue president.”

Back to the above-mentioned book. Here are a couple excerpts of it, as reported by the Post:

* President Trump reveals himself as woefully uninformed about the basics of geography, incorrectly telling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “It’s not like you’ve got China on your border.” He toys with awarding himself the Medal of Freedom.

* Trump does not seem to grasp the fundamental history surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor. “Hey, John, what’s this all about? What’s this a tour of?” Trump asks his then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, as the men prepare to take a private tour of the USS Arizona Memorial, which commemorates the December 1941 Japanese surprise attack in the Pacific that pulled the United States into World War II.

* Many of the key moments reported in the book are rife with foreign policy implications, portraying a novice commander in chief plowing through normal protocols and alarming many both inside the administration and in other governments.

* Early in his administration, for instance, Trump is eager to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin — so much so, the authors write, “that during the transition he interrupts an interview with one of his secretary of state candidates” to inquire about his pressing desire: “When can I meet Putin? Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony?” he asks.

* After the two leaders meet face-to-face for the first time — 168 days into his presidency at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg — Trump promptly declares himself a Russia expert, dismissing the expertise of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who had worked closely with Putin since the 1990s, when Tillerson was working his way up the ExxonMobil corporate ladder and doing business with Russia. ”

* Early in his presidency, Trump agrees to participate in an HBO documentary that features judges and lawmakers — as well as all the living presidents — reading aloud from the Constitution. But Trump struggles and stumbles over the text, blaming others in the room for his mistakes and griping, “’It’s like a foreign language.’”

In an author’s note, the writers say their work is based on hundreds of hours of interviews with more than 200 sources, corroborated, when possible, by calendars, diary entries, internal memos and even private video recordings.

One government aide told the authors that Trump has destroyed the gravity and allure that used to surround the presidency, regardless of the Oval Office occupant.

“’He’s ruined that magic,’” this aide said of Trump.  ’The disdain he shows for our country’s foundation and its principles. The disregard he has for right and wrong. Your fist clenches. Your teeth grate.’ ”

Episodes such as those reported in the book can seem irrelevant, given the challenges of every day life. But I say no.

They describe a president severely out of touch with reality. And he has no plans to bone up on his job and, even if he did, it would be too late.

America, under Trump’s leadership – if you can call what he provides “leadership” – has taken huge turns for the worse.

I only hope we can survive until the next election, though I would be happy if, before then, Trump were to be kicked out of office for his huge misdeeds, an unlikely event in the U.S. Senate where Republicans are poised to excuse him.

So what’s worse? That Trump is stupid and doesn’t prepare for anything. Or, that by the acts of his own stupidity and inattention to detail, he risks the future of the U.S.

Both!

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.

As I write this, I am still recovering.

From what?

From walking 18 holes four days in a row at the American Express Golf Professional Tournament in La Quinta, California, about two miles from where I have the good fortune to live in the winter.

My volunteer role, one of more than 1,000 at the event, was to serve as a “walking marshal.”

That meant, with an assigned group, I walked down the rough line “inside the ropes” (such rope lines always mark the sides of fairways at professional golf tournaments, providing a way for spectators to stay off the golf course during play).

My job was to make sure spectators honored the rope line, plus to help get players and caddies from one green to the next tee. For the first three days, I was on the Nicklaus Tournament Course at PGA West. Then, for the final day, the fourth, I was on the PGA West Stadium Course.

A highlight of the four days was that I had the good fortune to be assigned to walk on the second day with two great players – Phil Mickelson, the official “host” for the tournament (and by the way, my daughter Lissy’s favorite player), and Tony Finau, who has made a name for himself recently with stellar play around the world, including in the recent President’s Cup.

With this context, here are a few perceptions day-by-day.

DAY ONE

I was following two excellent players:

• Cameron Champ, who only a couple years out of college at Texas A&M, has already won twice on the PGA Tour and hits the golf ball prodigious lengths.
• Billy Horschel, a veteran player who made a name for himself several years ago by winning the $10 million FedEx Cup.

As for Champ’s length, consider this. On the golf hole where drive measurements were taken, there were markings on the fairway all the way to 330 yards. Champ hit his drive 361 yards, the longest of the day, which required volunteers to pace off the extra distance.

DAY TWO

This was my highlight day, following Mickelson and Finau.

Given that I was such a key cog in the wheel, I was able to help Finau shoot a remarkable 62…and the score could even have been lower. True confessions: Obviously, I had nothing to do with his great play.

Mickelson struggled in at least two ways: He hit a few bad shots from which he couldn’t recover. And, while he hit a number of good putts that he thought were in, they weren’t.

Sound familiar for us “regular golfers?” Yes.

Both Mickelson and Finau conducted themselves with skill and class, including the relationship with their two amateur partners.

Early in the round, as I was walking inside the ropes, I overheard Mickelson go into an extensive summary of advice for his amateur partner on how to hit chip shots. In my hearing, Mickelson referred to the advice he himself got from his short-game guru, the famous Dave Pelz.

Good for Phil, I say. He did not set out to remain above the fray in some kind of exalted status – a status it could be said he deserves, especially because of his status as “the host” for this year’s event, not to mention his 44 golf wins around the world. Rather, he came across as a real human being – also a reference he deserves.

DAY THREE

In a way, a forgettable day today as I walked with two journeyman players, Brian Gay and Hunter Mahan, neither of whom made the cut to play in the final round.

Mahan, remember, was the U.S. player in the Ryder Cup over in England who fluffed a chip shot, which confirmed that the U.S. would lose the cup. It is likely that Mahan has never been the same since, though he has won six times on the PGA Tour.

The highlight on Day Three was getting to watch one of the amateurs, Laurent Hurtubise from Canada. He plays with only one arm, his other being only down to the elbow. At about 50 years old now, he has played one-handed since he was 11.

To say he is admirable is an understatement and, to put a point on it, he recorded a hole-in-one during play on Friday. He said it was his third, but his first in a tournament.

For the limited number of fans who followed Gay and Mahan, Hurtubise was the star of the show.

DAY FOUR

Nothing more needs to be written about this day other than to say it involved Abraham Ancer, the golfer whose family hails from Mexico and is the best player the country has produced in years.

He shot 9-under on the tough Stadium Course, but came up two strokes short of Andrew Landry, who was playing in the last group, two holes behind Ancer. Landry birdied the last two holes to win by two, thus avenging a playoff loss in the same tournament three years ago.

Ancer played great golf, never risking even a bogey. He also interacted well with the crowd, which was composed of many Latinos.

So, for those keeping track, in my role as a walking marshal, I prodded Tony Finau to shoot a 62 and Ancer to shoot a 63. I may go into this line of work!

For a golfer, volunteering at the American Express was a good experience: Up and close and personal with a number of good pros, a process which sparks at least three perspectives.

The first is admiration for the quality of golf the pros play, under pressure, a large crowd and TV cameras. As the ad saying goes, “these guys are good.”

The second is to reckon how much fun it was to share this good experience with my family – my wife who functioned as my chauffeur to get me to and from the golf course every day, my son who is far better at golf than I ever was or ever will be and who was interested in my ”draws” for the tournament, and my daughter who followed my experience, especially with Mickelson, with great interest.

The third is intimidation, at least in a sense. These guys are so good it is almost impossible to understand how far away you are from the most competent kind of golf the pros display – far away in years, not to mention ability

So what, I tell myself. Pro golf never was even a slight possibility for me, but I still relish playing the game – with my family and with friends…friends who have stuck with me through thick and thin over many years.

So, today, my motivation is to get back to the real world of golf – and that is a good thing for me.

AND THIS FOOTNOTE: On the day before the tournament, my wife and I went out for breakfast at a well-known La Quinta eatery. What did we find? On the menu, there was this label: Phil Mickelson Eggs Benedict. Apparently, Mickelson often goes there when he is in town, but this time, sadly, we didn’t see him. If he had been there, no doubt he would have wanted my autograph!