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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

With all that has happened over the last few days in Congress as senators have considered the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, why would I find it necessary to add my voice to the fray?

Well, the phrase that comes to the mind is the one Sir Edmund Hillary used when he was asked why he chose to climb Mt. Everest.  “Because it’s there,” he said.

So, with Hillary, I say I comment on Barrett’s nomination “because it’s there.”

Thus, these random perspectives:

• After hearing Barrett answer questions (or, in many cases, listen to 22 senators give 30 minute speeches for the cameras) for two days, I have huge respect for her intellect, her memory of the specifics of legal cases, and her ability to parry thrusts from Democrats out to demonize her as a threat to abortion, health care and same-sex marriage.
• If I were voting, I would support in a minute based on the excellence of her performance in the hot seat.
• At the same time, I have questions about the Republican push to achieve confirmation while the national election is under way.  It’s an example of the political power Republicans have.  And they are using it.
• Further, I posit that, if Democrats were in charge in the Senate and had the presidency, they would do the same thing.
• One of my friends told me the other that the Democrats-would-do-the-same was supposition and that there was no example of when they had so acted.  Yet, yesterday, I thought of one.  It was when the Democrats enacted ObamaCare without a single Republican vote.  Why?  Because they could.
• Further, regarding Barrett.  She is a clearly a person of high character who lives out her commitment to religious faith and family.  Both are credentials for serving on the highest court in the land.
• It was striking to see her family – husband and six children – sitting behind her in the Senate chamber.  They were all masked, illustrating a commitment to limiting the virus.  Two of her children were adopted from Haiti.  A seventh child, one with Down’s Syndrome, was home with caregivers.  What a great model for women in this country who saw a great example of the combination of family, faith and professional acumen.
•  Watching the proceedings over the last couple days was an experience in understanding how government works – and, specifically, the key differences between the Legislative Branch that makes policy and the Judicial Branch that interprets the meaning of that policy.  That’s why Barrett, like many Supreme Court nominees before her, refused to commit to policy predictions, though Democrats tried to lay traps for her.  Good for her to avoid them.

In sum, it would be easy for me to vote for Barrett given her credentials and, to me, character matters.  At the same time, I have questions about the decision to hold the confirmation process during an election.