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.

Done.

My wife and I did our civic duty yesterday.

We voted at home and put our ballots in the mail so they would arrive easily on time.

It was a pleasure to perform this duty this time for at least one major reason:  We had the opportunity cast our votes for the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris presidential ticket.

It was not hard to do, considering the utter failure of the Trump presidency.

And, without any special markings, our vote for Biden/Harris amounted to the special privilege of casting a vote against the Donald Trump/Mike Pence ticket.

Here’s hoping a majority of Americans will join us to put an end to the Trump buffoonery.

All Americans deserve better in the highest political office in the land.

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.

If you follow politics, as I do, especially in retirement, it often can be a confounding process.  Who to listen to?  Who to trust?  Who can be counted on to for the good of the American people?

In the case of the presidential race, these questions are especially central to any decision.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Character matters in election decisions.

And Joe Biden has character.  Donald Trump has none.

Mail ballots for my wife and me arrived yesterday, which means we will vote soon.  We won’t mimic each other, a good and rational thing, but, on one vote, we’ll be the same.

We’ll both vote for Biden.

One of my favorite columnists, Michael Gerson, wrote a piece for the Washington Post this morning that appeared under this headline:

A conservative’s case for Biden

Now, I don’t label myself a conservative (because, for one reason, labels are so misused these days), but Gerson makes a great case for voting for Biden.  Rather than interpreting his words, I will simply reprint them here.

**********

The reasons for a traditional conservative to oppose President Trump’s reelection grow daily. There is his abdication of leadership in fighting the coronavirus pandemic; his active encouragement of citizens to adopt reckless and unhealthy behavior; his corruption of public institutions for political gain; his cultivation of right-wing extremism; his determined effort to undermine public confidence in an election he seems likely to lose.

All these are excellent reasons for people on the center right not to cast their vote for Trump. They do not, however, constitute a case for supporting Joe Biden. I have previously argued that the Democratic nominee’s pro-choice views should not be dispositive. But are there positive reasons for a moderate conservative to cast his or her vote for Biden?

One reason is merely strategic, but not unimportant. Because of the terrible damage Trump has done to the Republican Party, it is not enough for him to lose. He must lose in a fashion that constitutes repudiation. For the voter, this means that staying home on Election Day, or writing in Mitt Romney’s name, is not enough. She or he needs to vote in a manner that encourages a decisive Biden win. This theory also requires voting against all the elected Republicans who have enabled Trump (which is nearly all elected Republicans). A comprehensive Republican loss is the only way to hasten party reform. Those who love the GOP must (temporarily) leave it and ensure it is thoroughly defeated in its current form.

But this is still not a reason for a conservative to feel a glow of satisfaction after voting for Biden. He is, after all, a centrist Democrat, in a party where the ideological center of gravity has been moving steadily left. There is a case to be made, however, that the former vice president is well matched to our historical moment.

First, the restoration of institutions often requires the knowledge and skills of an insider. We have lived through the presidency of a defiant outsider who dismisses qualities such as professionalism and expertise as elitism. Trump assesses agencies within the executive branch by one criterion: Either they can be politically co-opted, or they deserve to be wrecked.

Much of the initial work of a Biden administration would be to de-Trumpify public institutions, restore their independence and integrity, and return competence to governance. This is true of the Justice Department, which is being politicized by a pathetic factotum. This is true of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, which Trump has infected with his biases and brutality.

It is true of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, which need to be restored as trusted sources of advice and information. It is true of the demoralized intelligence community and State Department. And it is true of the presidency itself, which Trump has turned into a stage for his obscene, playacted authoritarianism.

There is a reason why the uninspiring Gerald Ford was an inspired choice to follow Richard Nixon. Ford had been a respected legislator for a quarter of a century. As president, he knew the personnel choices and institutional rituals that would begin to restore credibility to politicized agencies. Biden has the background and capacity to do the same.

The second reason that Biden might be a good fit for our times concerns racial justice and criminal justice reform. Next to getting control of covid-19, these matters have the greatest political and social momentum. Racism is an ongoing challenge to America’s self-definition. And if all the marching and activism of the past several months comes to nothing, it will be another cause of social unrest.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Biden was criticized for straddling sides. He has a history of supporting the police, and a relationship of trust with the African American community. If there is going to be serious criminal justice reform at the federal level, it will require just such a leader. Biden has the background and capacity to become a bridge between law enforcement and those pushing for social justice.

Third, Biden is a reasonable progressive. The initial economic suffering from the pandemic overwhelmingly fell on low-wage and minority workers. Today we are experiencing a recovery that William Galston has called “the most unequal in modern history.” There are now more jobs for the top quarter of earners than before the covid-19 crisis. For the bottom quarter, jobs have dropped by more than 20 percent. Someone needs to be looking out for wage workers during an uneven recovery. Biden has the background and capability to play that role.

This would not be a sufficient case for me to support Biden over a serious Republican candidate. But in our choice between the arsonist and the institutionalist, the institutionalist has virtues of his own.

**********

So, Biden gets my vote.  And, in lesser form, so does Gerson for his thoughtful approach to making a case for Biden.

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.

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.

NOTE:  This is an old health care blog, but one worth repeating.  Plus, in light of the fact that ObamaCare now exists and has done some good work, a point I make below is that now is the time to work to improve it, not work to toss it out.  And, as I write this, the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is under way in Washington, D.C.  ObamaCare has been a central tenet of that process illustrating that Democrats believe Barrett wants to gut the law.  To her credit, Judge Barrett, appropriately, has declined to predict how should would rule on such a case when one comes to the Court, but she also stresses she is not an enemy of ObamaCare.

**********

One recent news development prompts me to go into my “archives” (no, there is no real archive, just my own random files) to see what I wrote about health care many months ago.

As mentioned in the note agove, the development is the confirmation hearing for the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court.  Critics on the Senate Committee conducting her confirmation hearing have tried to paint her as a direct threat to ObamaCare, earlier known as the Affordable Care Act.

Other issues have been raised – especially abortion – but the future of ObamaCare has been central to proceedings.

As I watched much of the process on-line (remember, I am retired, so don’t have much else to do), I found myself marveling at Judge Barrett’s ability, with skill, distinction and honesty, to avoid traps laid by some Senate Democrats.  They wanted to depict her as an enemy of health care by getting her to commit to getting rid of ObamaCare, and she would have none of it.

So it was that I went to my archives.

A number of months ago, under this headline – What Could Constitute Middle-of-the-Road Health Care Reform – I wrote that I felt it was important for me to have suggestions about reform, not just criticisms of ObamaCare.

I also said a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as what to do about health care for Americans.  A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration as it developed what came to be called ObamaCare, or in contrast to Republicans in Congress who have no alternatives, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

In today’s confirmation hearing, Senator John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas, put it very well when he said Congress – and he included himself in his indictment – had not done its job well by producing ObamaCare law.  In fact, he said Members of Congress don’t even see legislative language as they delegate the writing task to staff.

If, he contended, Congress had developed the exact language of health care policy and set out to build a strong and bi-partisan consensus for it, health care policy would not be as contentious as it is today.

For that failure, he blamed both Republicans and Democrats.

All parties should endeavor to do what did not occur with ObamaCare, which was developed by one side behind closed doors.  The plan gave bureaucrats control of health care and represented, to many, the  irst step down a slippery slope toward a single payer health care system that would bankrupt the federal treasury, if it is not already bankrupt.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans.  And the final vote was taken even before many of those who voted had even read the legislation.

 It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress – and, yes, there are some, perhaps a minority, but “some” nonetheless.

And, I believe the middle ground solution should include involvement from government and the private sector

If Republicans in Congress would participate in an effort to produce solid reform, instead of just carping about ObamaCare, our country would be better for the effort.  That would require a change of heart and mind on the part of Republicans.  Work toward the smart middle instead of just saying no routinely.

And, of course, Democrats would have to participate fully in the process.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what I called several months ago “four legs of the health care stool.” 

1.  It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse.   The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

THINK OF IT THIS WAY.  ALL OF US WHO DRIVE CARS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE.  IF WE DON’T, WE PAY A PRICE.  THE SAME POLICY SHOULD EXIST FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.

2.  Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written:  “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3.  Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions.  Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.  And, I support covering pre-existing conditions even if it costs me more money to do so.

4.  Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA).  ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on government mandates and funding. Along with government health care, including Medicare and Medicaid, a functioning private marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

I hope those involved in Congress and the Administration will move to consider real health care from and then build consensus behind it .  At the same time, because ObamaCare is in place, the best solution is to build on it, not tear it down. 

Now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families.  A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable, long-term reform.

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.

The perception conveyed by the headline for this blog was posited recently by Washington Post opinion writer Matt Bai.

He’s right and, in just a few words, he summarized the problem with Donald Trump.

You can provide lots of detail about Trump’s missteps as president, many of them intentional as he attempts to fool the public into believing “he is great.”

But, in the end, it’s this that is true:  He is a bad person.  As evidenced by his narcissism, which illustrates that, in his mind, he is involved as the centerpiece in every issue – and everyone else be damned…the American people, the late Senator John McCain, military veterans, anyone who cares about racial justice, anyone who accepts the notion that immigrants should have a chance for a better life in the U.S., etc.

Here’s how Bai started his column:

“A group calling itself Republican Voters Against Trump released a powerful video this week featuring an endorsement of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden by Michael Hayden, the retired Air Force general who headed the National Security Agency and the CIA under President George W. Bush.

“The most bracing part of Hayden’s message comes at the end.  ‘I absolutely disagree with some of Biden’s policies, but that’s not important,” he says.  ‘Biden is a good man. Donald Trump is not.’”

That one jolting line, Bai avers, gets to the bedrock issue of the 2020 campaign — and why the electorate could be poised to reject an incumbent president for the first time in 28 years – or, at least, that is my hope that voters reject Trump and the dishonest, inhumane, selfish policies he stands for.

Here are just a few instances of the “bad” Trump:

• He is a narcissist who believes everything revolves him.
• He blames victims for anything and everything, which is why he hates immigrants and continues to separate immigrant children from their families.
• He lies incessantly.  It is second nature to him.
• He eschews the work of being president as he avoids briefings, doesn’t read anything, and flies by the seat of his pants.
• He has made the pandemic worse by his own inaction.

Enough. 

This list could go on and on.  But let’s hope that, later this fall, we’ll have had enough of this worst of all American presidents.

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.

The other day journalist James Fallows warned against the media trend these days that translates all political issues into what he called “horse-racism.”

The question always is, “Who’s ahead.”  Rather, it should be than what policy issues are being discussed and what solutions are proposed, however flawed the discussion may be.

Great point.

And, thus, I say, we should not fall victim to “horsed-racism” in rating the now-several-days-old debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.

The question is not who won.  It is what did each say about issues that should affect our vote in just a few days and how did their expressions of their character affect our perception about who would be best as VP (though, of course, we vote essentially for the top of the ticket). 

The vice president debate was far removed from the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  While there were interruptions between the VP candidates, it was possible to glean a few nuggets from the encounter, not possible when Trump yelled throughout his contest.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the VP debate:

• Harris has a better answer on the pandemic.  Listen to scientists.  Don’t make things worse by violating every norm, as Trump has done, with nary a word of warning from Pence.

James Fallows in the Atlantic Magazine put it this way:  “With the first words of her first response, Kamala Harris presented what was essentially a prosecutor’s opening argument about mismanagement of the pandemic.  ‘’he American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,’ she began, looking not at Page (the moderator) or Pence, but directly at the camera. ‘Hundreds of thousands of people dead; millions infected; one in five American businesses closed; “frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers … They knew what was happening, and they didn’t tell you.’”

As an aside, there was an interesting time when a fly landed on Pence’s snow-white hair—and the vice president did not react at all.  Which prompted some analysts to suggest that the fly was a symbol — through all of the scandals and the crimes and the disasters of the past four years, Pence was the man who pretended not to notice just as he pretended not to notice the fly on his head. 

• Harris has a better answer on the economy.  Create taxes on the rich to prod the country out from under the pandemic, not to mention reducing the ever-growing federal deficit.  And, in response to Pence, Harris said the Biden-Harris Administration would not tax families if their income was under $400,000 annually.

• Harris has a better answer on racism.  It exists and it is past time to do something about it, a comment which resonates given her own status as a Black woman.

So, make a voting decision on the merits of the candidates, not on a notion of who’s ahead.

This footnote:

A recent, unprecedented editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine puts the case against the Trump administration clearly: “The response of our nation’s leaders has been consistently inadequate. The federal government has largely abandoned disease control to the states. Governors have varied in their responses, not so much by party as by competence. But whatever their competence, governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. Instead of using those tools, the federal government has undermined them. . . . Our current leaders have undercut trust in science and in government, causing damage that will certainly outlast them. Instead of relying on expertise, the administration has turned to uninformed ‘opinion leaders’ and charlatans who obscure the truth and facilitate the promulgation of outright lies.”

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.

After watching Donald Trump do dumb stuff for more than three years now, as well as his harmful actions with the virus over the last few days, I often find myself wondering why he behaves with so much disdain for reputable norms.

One reason is that Trump is the very definition of a narcissist, one who sees everything through the lens of how it affects him and only him.

But Washington Post writer Charles Lane posited another reason in a column this week – the one depicted in the headline in this blog.

There is unifying theme to all actions by and involving Trump, Lane writes:  His belief that rules, both written and unwritten, do not apply to him.

Recent examples of Trump defying rules:

• Contrary to what presidents have done for roughly 40 years, Trump has declined to release his tax returns, thus defying an unwritten, but closely followed, rule.
• In the first debate between Trump and his Democrat challenger, Joe Biden, Trump refused to wear face coverings, a rule that had been set by debate co-sponsor and health overseer, the Cleveland Clinic. 
• During the debate, Trump repeatedly and aggressively interrupted Biden, violating rules for the debate that he and his campaign had accepted in advance.
• Trump tested positive for the coronavirus, as did several of his aides and Republican senators, possibly due to exposure during the White House gathering to announce Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  The gathering was held despite rules against such events promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control.

Meanwhile, while Trump was convalescing – if that is what he was really doing —  Biden suspended negative advertising and publicly wished the president well, in conformity with this basic rule of etiquette:  Always express concern for the sick, even when it’s someone you oppose or, indeed, despise.

Columnist Lane continues:   “The contrast is clear, and it underscores Biden’s strongest selling point as a candidate; that, whatever else you can say about him, he is at least a normal, decent human being who would restore a sense of basic propriety to the highest office in the land.

“Never underestimate, though, the degree to which Trump’s supporters like him because of his rule-breaking — not despite it. That, in turn, reflects widespread sentiment that the U.S. political and economic systems are ‘rigged’ against people like them, and in favor of urban elites.  Through Trump, they fight back.”

*********

And this footnote, though it is\ not related to the rule-breaking issue. 

In a previous blog, I speculated that some folks who continue to support Trump despite his rule-breaking, do so because they may feel their 401K and other retirement funds will fare better under Republicans than Democrats.

Well, this letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal caught my attention.  It was from a retiree in Florida.

“While Grover Norquist is right to point out that perhaps half of Americans have money in the stock market, his selective use of statistics neglects to mention that for most people, that “stock ownership” is a very small sum, indeed.

“Bankrate.com calculates that the median stock ownership for workers 50-59 years old was just $65,000, not nothing, certainly, but not nearly the amount needed to cover expenses for retirement, including the exorbitant costs for health care and medicine, coming in just a few short years for this age group.

“And let’s not forget that over the past 50 years in America, a time during which Republicans and Democrats have held the White House for roughly the same number of years, both stock markets and wages have increased faster during Democrat administrations. I think my 401(k) would do better under a Democrat administration.”

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 linother 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.

********

NOTE:  I first posted this blog a couple days ago, but, upon reflection, I may have left an impression that I agree with the points made in excerpts of a political column by Kimberley Strassel which are referenced in the original blog.

I don’t.

But I do think Strassel did a decent job of summarizing reasons why some people could still support Trump despite all of his missteps as president, most of the them intentional as he functions like what he once was — a reality TV host.

Her contention is that the administration of President Barack Obama, along with Congress, resorted too quickly to government action in response to nearly every problem.  That meant devaluing the role of the private sector, one of the best examples of which was establishment of ObamaCare,  which passed without one Republican vote in Congress.

Now, however, beyond the “too much government notion,” Trumpians may want to avoid the result of a return of the “Democrat elite” who they fear will tell them what to do all the time.

Perhaps, but I also think some Trump supporters remain in that camp out of selfishness – they want what they want when they want and believe Trump will give it to them.,  Part of this angst may apply to the status of their 401K and other retirement funds, but, during the Obama Administration, those funds performed well, so it would not be right to blame Obama and trust Trump on this issue.

So, if you read this again, know that I still wonder how it is possible for Trump supporters to continue to be Trump supporters, a proposition that takes on even more significance in the face of Trump continuing to flout virus protocols even as he contracted the disease and, without any apparent concern, exposed others to it.

*******

The question implied by this blog headline has stumped me for months, even years.

I have seen President Donald Trump do so much dumb stuff, amidst hundreds of lies, that I wonder why some of my friends can still support him.  How can that be?

So it was that a column by Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel caught my attention this weekend.  I found time to read it even as I and many other Americans worried about Trump’s health as he and others in his family and associates contended with positive results on the Covid-19 virus.

While I do not support Trump, I do wish him well in his recovery – a phrase I write with absolute honesty.

But back to Strassel’s commentary.  Here are excerpts from what she wrote under this headline:

The James Comey Election/His testimony this week was a reminder of everything that enrages Trump voters.

“The political elite remain puzzled—and in agony—over how Donald Trump could still be in the race.  A bullying debater!  A purveyor of mistruths!  A would-be autocrat!  How has our country come to this?

“The answer sat staring at them on a videolink this Wednesday, in the smug countenance of James Comey.

“This obvious truth will be missed by the left and the media, which continue to comfort themselves with the fiction that Trump won in 2016 by preying on the weak and ill-informed.  The opposite is true.  The businessman was propelled to office on the fury of those who had seen too much.

“They’d watched for decades as an insulated elected class—Democrat and Republican alike—broke promises, failed to solve problems, and blamed it on the system.

“These voters had watched the swamp take over—IRS targeters, self-righteous prosecutors, zealous regulators—armed with stunning powers and a mentality that they were entitled to make the rules, to tell the little people what was best for them.  Voters fumed over the double standard. Hillary Clinton deleted government emails with abandon, while a 77-year-old Navy veteran went to prison for building a pond in contravention of “navigable water” rules.

“… November’s vote for many Americans will be a choice between an administration that believes we the people should run Washington, and those who believe the swamp should rule the masses.”

Believe her or not, I think Strassel captures the fear of a return to Democrat control in Washington, D.C. – fears felt, but not always expressed, by my friends.  So, they hated the “government knows best” policies of the administration of President Barack Obama and fear his vice president, Joe Biden, now possibly the next president, will only cater to the “we know best” left.

“Those eight years,” Strassel writes, “featured plenty of swamp monsters — and don’t underestimate the number of Americans who fear a return to that world.  Lois Lerner harassing conservative non-profits.  Supervisors at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives loosing guns in Fast and Furious.  The Environmental Protection Agency minions who burned companies with ever-changing rules.  The Bureau of Land Management harassment of ranchers and farmers.  Energy Department officials steering stimulus payouts to Solyndra and other projects of Obama donors.”

Finally, this point.  Some of my friends rate a presidential administration on how their 401-K funds or other retirement funds fare. 

On that basis, the fact is the Obama years weren’t bad ones.  But, the fear of the Democrat elite persists, which means that Trump will get some votes from some of the fearful.

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.

The question implied by this blog headline has stumped me for months, even years.

I have seen President Donald Trump do so much dumb stuff, amidst hundreds of lies, that I wonder why some of my friends can still support him.  How can that be?

So it was that a column by Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel caught my attention this weekend.  I found time to read it even as I and many other Americans worried about Trump’s health as he and others in his family and associates contended with positive results on the Covid-19 virus.

While I do not support Trump, I do wish him well in his recovery – a phrase I write with absolute honesty.

But back to Strassel’s commentary.  Here are excerpts from what she wrote under this headline:

The James Comey Election/His testimony this week was a reminder of everything that enrages Trump voters.

“The political elite remain puzzled—and in agony—over how Donald Trump could still be in the race.  A bullying debater!  A purveyor of mistruths!  A would-be autocrat!  How has our country come to this?

“The answer sat staring at them on a videolink this Wednesday, in the smug countenance of James Comey.

“This obvious truth will be missed by the left and the media, which continue to comfort themselves with the fiction that Trump won in 2016 by preying on the weak and ill-informed.  The opposite is true.  The businessman was propelled to office on the fury of those who had seen too much.

“They’d watched for decades as an insulated elected class—Democrat and Republican alike—broke promises, failed to solve problems, and blamed it on the system.

“These voters had watched the swamp take over—IRS targeters, self-righteous prosecutors, zealous regulators—armed with stunning powers and a mentality that they were entitled to make the rules, to tell the little people what was best for them.  Voters fumed over the double standard. Hillary Clinton deleted government emails with abandon, while a 77-year-old Navy veteran went to prison for building a pond in contravention of “navigable water” rules.

“… November’s vote for many Americans will be a choice between an administration that believes we the people should run Washington, and those who believe the swamp should rule the masses.”

Believe her or not, I think Strassel captures the fear of a return to Democrat control in Washington, D.C. – fears felt, but not always expressed, by my friends.  So, they hated the “government knows best” policies of the administration of President Barack Obama and fear his vice president, Joe Biden, now possibly the next president, will only cater to the “we know best” left.

“Those eight years,” Strassel writes, “featured plenty of swamp monsters — and don’t underestimate the number of Americans who fear a return to that world.  Lois Lerner harassing conservative non-profits.  Supervisors at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives loosing guns in Fast and Furious.  The Environmental Protection Agency minions who burned companies with ever-changing rules.  The Bureau of Land Management harassment of ranchers and farmers.  Energy Department officials steering stimulus payouts to Solyndra and other projects of Obama donors.”

Finally, this point.  Some of my friends rate a presidential administration on how their 401-K funds or other retirement funds fare. 

On that basis, the fact is the Obama years weren’t bad ones.  But, the fear of the Democrat elite persists, which means that Trump will get some votes from some of the fearful.

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.

Just for the sake of the argument, guess what happens if President Donald Trump is incapacitated or dies from the Covid-19 virus?

And, guess what happens if Vice-President Mike Pence suffers the same fate at nearly the same time.

Guess who becomes president?

The answer:  Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi becomes president.

That’s the succession spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

Imagine what Republicans would think or say if that happened!

Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves this morning.

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, led the way in what should be our main instinct this morning, the morning when we leaned that Trump and his wife, Melania, had contracted the virus.

We should wish for a speedy recovery for the Trumps.

Here is what the Bidens said:

“Jill and I send our thoughts to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a swift recovery.  We will continue to pray for the health and safety of the president and his family.”

Now, that’s statesmanship!