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.

As I re-read this post before posting, I have mixed emotions what I have written, though I have labored over it for several days.

The subject is pro golfer Phil Mickelson.

I have read a lot of commentary lately detailing Mickelson’s dalliance with the proposed new “Saudi Golf League,” which, if it were to exist, would be direct competitor to the PGA Tour.

It appears Mickelson’s mouth may have gotten him in trouble again.

But, as the headline says, the question is whether this is a major issue for professional golf or just a temporary kerfuffle.

By the way – and, as an aside – don’t you like that word “kerfuffle?”  It sort of rolls off the tongue and, once you know the definition – “a fuss or commotion” – the word even sounds a bit like what it is…something temporary.

However, as early as it may be in this issue, Mickelson has come in for withering criticism in a number of golf publications, as well as in such general news vehicles as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

What was it he said that set off this controversy?

He said that he not only welcomed the new, proposed Saudi Golf League, he had been instrumental in drafting the blueprint for the new league.

He was quoted in several publications as saying this:

“They’re scary motherf—–s to get involved with.  We know they killed Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and have a horrible record on human rights. They execute people over there for being gay.  Knowing all of this, why would I even consider it?  Because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape how the PGA Tour operates.”

There.  The quote says volumes.

Mickelson’s true point seems to be that he wants to re-make how the PGA Tour operates and his support for the Saudi Golf League is a way to inflate his leverage.

Or is it?

One of my friends counseled that it is too early to reach such conclusions.  What is occurring may just be a temporary kerfuffle that blows over, much like previous Mickelson rants. 

But, Eamon Lynch in GolfWeek has a more bottom-line take in a story that began with this headline:

Phil Mickelson’s mouth has brought him — and his greedy Saudi scheme — to the brink of ruin

Lynch went on:

“An old adage—often wrongly attributed to Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’—holds that if you wait by the riverbank long enough, the bodies of your enemies will eventually float by.  That’s as good a metaphor as any for how some golf industry executives must have felt in the wake of recent comments by Phil Mickelson that incinerated his reputation, alienated most every constituency in the game, exposed him to disciplinary action, and otherwise cast him in a light so unflatteringly amoral that even Greg Norman might hesitate to be seen in his company.

“In a November interview with writer Alan Shipnuck that was only made public this week, Mickelson betrayed the traits that have frequently led him into choppy waters:  A beguiling mix of arrogance and obtuseness.  He confirmed what was widely known—that he’s an advocate for the Saudi-backed Super Golf League—and breezily admitted his willingness to overlook the regime’s abuses simply for a chance to force concessions from the PGA Tour that would further enrich him.”

After two years of speculation about which current PGA Tour players might bolt to the new league and for how much, the narrative changed after Mickelson’s comments to focus on who won’t be cashing a check from the Saudis.

The list of Saudi Golf League naysayers is considerably more impressive than the roster of players who have said they might bolt.

One, Rory McElroy, entered the fray last weekend by blasting Mickelson.

“I don’t want to kick someone while he’s down,” McElroy said.  “But I thought his remarks were naive, selfish, egotistical, ignorant.”

Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin added a useful perspective when she wrote about all sorts of corporations who, she said, “shamelessly do business with the Saudis.”

She added:  “Mickelson’s Faustian bargain with the Saudis brought on a furious reaction because his reasoning was patently amoral and because the stakes for him (a new golf tournament series for already rich and successful golfers) are pathetically small.  But really, there are plenty of Phil Mickelsons out there.  They simply aren’t as honest about their willingness to attain selfish ends at the expense of the freedom, dignity and lives of others.”

Overstated?  Perhaps.

But the magazine Global Golf Post went farther by alleging that Mickelson’s comments “took a blowtorch to his own reputation,” and might also adversely affect any chance of his being named Ryder Cup captain in the future or ponder a post-playing career in television broadcasting.

In summary, major issue or temporary kerfuffle?

As they say, only time will tell.

For my part, I will be content to let events play out a bit longer before I render my judgment on whether Mickelson remains one of my favorite pro golfers or not.  For now, I hope he gets about the business of playing golf on the PGA Tour or the Champions Tour where he has carved out a hall-of-fame career worth millions.