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 the most recent election unfolded, there was a question about whether Donald Trump would emerge as kingmaker or be a weight around a candidate’s neck.

At the moment, both are possible.

I arrive at this position after reading a lot of election coverage in the Oregonian newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times – all reliable sources.  They, too, have encountered mixed results on whether Trump is kingmaker or anchor.

The jury is out if only because it will take a few more days for all results to be tabulated around the country, including the race for 5^th District congressional seat in Oregon where my friend Kurt Schrader is in a race for his political life.

Regarding Trump, I wish he would just head toward his Mar-A-Lago residence, if he is not already there – and stay there out of the limelight he craves above all else.

We have had way too much of his ruinous ways of dealing with national politics.

Here’s is how hill.com described the status:

“Tuesday’s primaries are fueling questions about the strength of Donald Trump’s endorsement even as the results underscored the extent to which the former president has molded the party in his image.

“While Trump’s favored Senate candidate in North Carolina, Representative Ted Budd won his primary decisively, others who had received his endorsement, including Representative Madison Cawthorn and Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, were defeated.

“Even more disappointing for Trump, his endorsed candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, Mehmet Oz, remains locked in a tight battle with hedge fund manager Dave McCormick.”

Overall, hill.com continued, “last night’s primaries are far from a defeat for the former president, but they could stoke further questions about the extent to which he can clear primary fields and play kingmaker for the GOP.  It’s a good ticket, but it’s not a golden ticket.”

And, then, as an aside, there was a great line from late night host Jimmy Fallon as reported by the NY Times:  “And while Dr. Oz is in the lead for the Republican nomination, more votes have to be counted because the race is still too close to call.  This is kind of great.  I mean, for once it’s nice to have a doctor waiting for us.”

Beneath the surface of this week’s election there is an interesting irony about Trump.  Often, those on the left and Trump want the same result:  The nomination of the Trumpiest GOP candidate.  Why?  The left wants to run against Trump in the general election and Trump wants to be Trump.

So, one of the questions is who will – or at least who could — rise to lead the Republican party in the next presidential election if Trump’s popularity, as I hope, continues to fall.

There are several possibilities.

Mike Pompeo:  It’s not necessarily a telltale, but dropping a ton of weight and paying big bucks for media training aren’t things you have to do if your goal is merely to be a Fox News pundit.  The former secretary of state and Kansas congressman is a good bet to run if Trump doesn’t.

Chris Sununu: The New Hampshire governor broke some GOP hearts by declining to run for Senate; he would’ve been a major recruit in a key race.

Glenn Youngkin:  Another newcomer is the governor of Virginia. Youngkin’s 2021 win in a blue-leaning state — and the conservative governance that has followed — are going to continue to be cited as a model for the party.

Ted Cruz:  Besides being a crazy man, the U.S. senator from Texas finished second in the 2016 contest, and with that often comes something amounting to front-runner status the next time around.

Tim Scott:  The U.S. senator from South Carolina is raising huge money — $7 million last quarter — for something which should, by all accounts, be a pretty sleepy re-election race.

Donald Trump, Jr.:  Imagine a scenario in which the elder Trump doesn’t run.  Who else on this list is truly ready to lock down a significant majority of Trump supporters?  Perhaps the junior and a prevailing question for me is who would be worse – Trump the older or Trump the younger.

Mike Pence:  The former vice president’s refusal to go along with trying to overturn the 2020 election has led to an extended exercise in massaging the fallout.  He is still trying and could succeed.

Nikki Haley: The former United Nations ambassador and South Carolina governor has struggled to decide whether she’s angling to run in Trump’s GOP or a post-Trump GOP.  Eventually, she’ll have to decide.

Ron DeSantis:  It seems possible that DeSantis might run even if Trump does not.

Other possible names:  Florida Senator Rick Scott, South Dakota Governor Kristi L. Noem, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, Representative Liz Cheney, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott

My view:  Some of those listed above have acted like dunces – Trump, Jr. for instance – but, for me, anyone but Trump.

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.

In the immediate aftermath of any election – including the one yesterday – it usually is better to let the dust settle a bit before providing any sage analysis.

But no one, so far, has accused me of sagacity.

So here goes – early comments on the election even as all results are not in around the state.

GOVERNOR’S RACE:  It will be nothing if not interesting to see how the general election shakes out.  At least one thing is clear now:  It will be a woman who succeeds Governor Kate Brown next year.

Republican Christine Drazan appears to have won the primary defeating, among others, former state senator Bob Tiernan, Gresham mayor Stan Pulliam, and Salem oncologist Bud Pierce.

She will be running again Democrat Tina Kotek who prevailed among the Ds by a wide margin over a solid candidate, State Treasurer Tobias Read, who, it should be stated, is a friend if mine. 

Someday, he’ll be a good governor.  I hope he runs again.

Independent Betsy Johnson goes directly to the general election and, for one thing, brings a lot of money with her, which is one credential for mounting an aggressive campaign.  Independent candidates don’t usually have much of a chance of winning, but Johnson could be different as many Oregonians search for answers in the top political job in the state.

One interesting fact about the coming race will be this:  Drazan doesn’t much like Kotek because Kotek, then House Speaker, allegedly went back on her word to Drazan and other Republicans in the House over the Legislature’s approach to re-districting. 

Kotek might disagree and, it should be added, I was not there to hear or watch the disagreement, so I just say it could be a factor in the general election.

Further, the Independent Johnson should be able to define differences from Kotek, who carved out a liberal record over her years as House Speaker.  Johnson hews toward the center.  During her career in the State Senate, she was a Democrat, but often voted with Republicans.

5^th DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL SEAT:  I am sorry that the incumbent, Democrat Kurt Schrader, appears to have lost to his D challenger, though nothing is final because a lot of votes in Clackamas County have not been counted yet.

I lobbied Schrader when he served in the State Senate as the reigning expert on the state budget.  He always considered the viewpoints I expressed on behalf of our firm’s clients.  That’s all I could ask for.

In Congress, Schrader carved out a centrist reputation and, unfortunately, that didn’t play in his district, which was re-drawn in the last few months to include, for the first time, Bend.

Here is how Aaron Blake in the Washington Post described Schrader’s loss under this headline:  Biden’s pick in Oregon trails badly.

“It’s worth noting that one of those endorsed — Schrader — is currently losing pretty badly.  Schrader trailed McLeod-Skinner about 61-38 per cent with 53 per cent of the vote in on Wednesday morning.

“Schrader is a moderate who sometimes alienated fellow House Democrats on spending bills — and who, due to redistricting, was campaigning in a very different district than in years past.

“Backing an incumbent facing a primary challenge is kind of a no-brainer for a president, but it’s looking like Oregon voters had little regard for Biden’s advice.”

An overstatement?  Probably.

BITS AND PIECES: 

• Sorry to note that a friend, Chane Griggs, lost a bid to become Salem’s mayor.  She would have been a good one.
• Sorry also to note that another friend, Kathleen Harder, lost a bid to win the new 6^th Congressional seat that includes Salem.  She would have been a solid Member of Congress.

AND IN CONCLUSION:  I remain glad that I am no longer involved in politics, given the pitted nature of interests in these days. 

I used to be possible, at least in Oregon, to have reasoned discussions with those with whom you might disagree.  Not so much these days as competing interests focus on criticizing each other rather than trying to find middle ground.

And, there I go again, writing about that evaporating subject — middle ground.

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.

For those of us who are tired of today’s political antics, there is a prescription for doing better.

It was offered this morning by Gerald Seib, who has written for the Wall Street Journal for nearly 30 years and is heading into retirement, though he will write on occasion for the Journal.

Here is the prescription:

• An outbreak of political courage:  Specifically, the country needs the emergence of more lawmakers from both parties who are willing to risk their jobs by reaching out to the other side, and to take steps that displease the most extreme elements of their own base.  Such leaders are in depressingly short supply.

• Actual steps to revive the political center, starting with dramatic actions to curtail gerrymandering:  Both parties have taken brazen actions at the state level to re-draw congressional districts into uncompetitive sinecures, thereby empowering those on the ideological wings.

• A bi-partisan agreement on the rules for casting and counting votes, taking election integrity off the table as a divisive issue:  Both sides are wholly dependent on confidence in the system that brought them to office. If, as seems likely, power in Washington is to be shared by the two parties after this fall’s midterm elections, they will have an equal stake in the soundness of the system, and the moment to end this corrosive argument could be at hand.

• A decision by voters across the spectrum to reward rather than punish responsible behavior and compromise:  Voters aren’t powerless; politicians respond to the signals they send.

I agree with Seib, but I offer a couple additions.

First, Republicans should ignore Donald Trump and return to real conservatism.  Trump sycophants also should head south.

Second, Democrats should return to a position left of center, though not wackily so as evidenced by some on the far left who are as goofy on the left as Trump and company are the right…if they actually are on the right.

Here is Seib’s introduction to his prescription:

“Over the life of this column, the landscape at home appears in many ways to have become less healthy and more unstable.  America’s political system is fractured and polarized, and reasoned debate seems to have given way to mindless shouting.  

“Democrats seem unable to talk to older rural voters, Republicans unable to talk to younger urban voters.

“The unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen from former President Donald Trump represent a dangerous cancer growing inside the body politic.

“Abroad, Russia has brazenly invaded a neighboring democratic state, Ukraine, simply because the autocrat in charge in Moscow wanted to do so. Nearly as distressing, some democratic nations—India most prominently—can’t bring themselves to condemn the action.”

So, it is easy, Seib writes, to be pessimistic about the future of democracy.

But, he advocates optimism.

“…there is another, more optimistic way to look at the landscape.  The genius of American democracy is that it isn’t static.  It adjusts and adapts over time to changing circumstances.  It renews itself.

“These adjustments usually are messy and disruptive, as they were when America evolved from slaveholding to abolitionist nation, from an agricultural to an industrial economy, from isolation to world leadership, from liberal dominance to a conservative arising.

“We are in the midst of another period of self-correction now, and that shouldn’t be surprising.  It turns out economic globalization and a technological revolution haven’t spread their benefits uniformly across society.

“The progress in racial equity wasn’t as thorough as many assumed. The coastal establishment’s disconnect from the heartland has invited cultural warfare.  Political leaders’ persistent failure to construct a more sane immigration system has undermined America’s powerful role as a magnet for talented and energetic people from around the globe.”

Seib’s optimism is worth considering. 

As America tries to deal with its future, including in the sense of its politics and governance, the stakes could not be higher.

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 someone who advocated over the years that various governors’ offices issue proclamations – for this month or that month – I know that, often, the words in such proclamations are not worth much.

But, there is a difference this time around.

May has been proclaimed as Golf Month in Oregon by Governor Kate Brown and there is a reason for her decision.

As indicated by the Oregon Golf Association (which I serve as a volunteer, as well as a member of the Executive Committee on the Board of Directors), here is a summary of the justification:

• A total golf economic impact of $1.6 billion annually in Oregon
• The golf industry in Oregon supports more than 16,500 jobs with $508.1 million of wage income
• Contributions of $19.1 million annually to Oregon charities
• Economic impact comparable in size to other important industries in the state, such as fishing and wine
• More than 242,000 Oregonians include golf as a part of their healthy lifestyle
• Golf Courses represent responsible uses of green space, providing wildlife habitat and corridors, a filter for runoff, and a cooling effect within developed area that benefit local communities.

These economic and environmental realities were verified by the Oregon Golf Association when it commissioned “An Oregon Golf Economic Impact Study by the National Golf Foundation.”

Good to have independent verification, including the numbers, for how important golf is to Oregon. 

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.

That’s what coming – a potentially major battle between supporters of lithium deposits in Eastern Oregon and supporters of sage grouse habitat.

The two occur in the same place on a remote stretch of the Oregon-Nevada border.

According to Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) — a former lobby client of mine and the best news outlet in the state from the standpoint of solid journalism — at least three companies have staked mining claims in some of the best remaining sage grouse habitat in Oregon.

Why?

Those companies want lithium, which is major ingredient in new-gauge batteries, which are used in many new electric cars — as well as in golf carts, I add as a golfer who wants a lithium-battery cart of my own.

OPB says multiple companies are issuing bold statements about the region’s lithium prospects to lure investors.  Meanwhile, the Biden administration is making a push to build a stand-alone battery supply chain in the U.S., further filling the mining industry’s sails.”

The coming battle also could play out in the California desert near where I lived during the winter.  In the Salton Sea east of Palm Springs, companies are hoping to start mining lithium from that body of water.  Again, there are huge deposits of lithium under water.

Despite the prospect of fierce land-use battles, I emphasize this piece of good news.  In Eastern Oregon and the California desert, mining would provide jobs for hundreds of workers – and both areas could use the economic good news of new jobs for persons who may now be unemployed.

Here are a few excerpts from the OPB story:

“Katie Fite crouched behind some waist-high sagebrush, and her dog Bell nestled in the plant’s cozy cavity to shield from howling winds.

“It was the first Saturday in April, peak mating season for sage grouse on a remote stretch of the Oregon-Nevada border.  From where Fite and her dog sat, they could see more than a dozen male grouse displaying their tail feathers and issuing their signature zip-popping call to bring all the girls to the yard.

“All around the lek — the flat, open areas where sage grouse congregate during mating season — were wooden stakes marking where mining companies may one day scrape away this crucial habitat to get at the minerals contained in the cake-soft earth of the McDermitt Caldera.

“The old super-volcano straddling the state line is laced with some of the highest concentrations of lithium in the United States, making it a prime target for miners and prospectors looking to feed a growing hunger for batteries to store renewable energy and power electric vehicles.

“It’s also some of the country’s best remaining sage grouse habitat, which has declined precipitously in the past century.”

“There’s still hope for sage grouse here, unlike many other areas,” said Fite, who’s monitored sage grouse for decades and now serves as public lands director for the conservation group Wildlands Defense. “But it’ll be a death knell for sage grouse out here if industrial mega-mining for lithium takes place.”

Just a few years ago, the McDermitt Caldera was off-limits to new mining claims to protect sage grouse.  But rule changes under the Trump Administration opened the door to extractive industry, and industry walked in.

OPB continues:

“The U.S. is heavily reliant on foreign imports of raw materials used in batteries, including lithium.  That leaves the supply chain, and thus the country’s transition off fossil fuels, vulnerable to geopolitical conflicts like the U.S. trade war with China and Russia’s war on Ukraine.

“’Clearly, the U.S. needs guaranteed domestic supply,’ said Lindsay Dudfield, executive director of Jindalee Resources Limited, an Australian company exploring a large lithium deposit in Oregon’s Malheur County. ‘And so you’ve seen bi-partisan support for the development of critical minerals projects in the United States growing.’

“Companies touting southeast Oregon’s mineral potential, including Jindalee, are several years away at the earliest from developing mines if they get to that point at all.  Any mine would require state and federal approval that could face legal challenges.

“But conservationists like Fite say the damage to sage grouse habitat has already started with exploratory drilling tearing up patches of sagebrush, and that any new mining would be devastating.

“’This would represent a total, tragic loss,’ Fite said.  ‘And I believe it has to be stopped.’”

So, the battle is just around the corner.  For my part, I can understand both points of view.  The economy is suffering, especially in rural areas of Oregon and California, so it makes sense to emphasize job creation.  But, at the same time, advocates convey concern about the environment, including for various kinds of animals that live off the land.

It strikes me that middle ground would be possible if both sides come to the debate with an open mind – and if neither side disparaged the other.  That’s often difficult in politics these days.

And, of course, the old saw still applies – we’ll see and time will tell.

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.

I wrote about the student debt issue a few days ago, conveying points my wife and I discussed about whether to forgive debt, or at least how to do so without simply forgiving ALL debt.

It is issue currently roiling this country.

The ideas we suggested:

• What about a proposal that knocked off a modest amount of debt for only the lowest earners and only for undergraduate study?
• What about a proposal to reward borrowers who chose careers in public service, or to expand an Obama Administration program helping those who got scammed by for-profit colleges?
• If a student took a low-paying job in an economically-deprived area on the premise that at least part of their college debt would be forgiven, what about a proposal to restore that incentive, especially if had been jerked away?
• What about a proposal to provide some relief for students, who, with their parents, chose less expensive state schools over high-priced private schools?

Then, yesterday, I read a “notable and quotable” piece in the Wall Street Journal, which raised a point we had missed – or at least that I decided not to raise.  This:  The usual focus on student debt excuses colleges and universities for dramatic increases in tuition.

I didn’t raise this because I thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to tell colleges – especially private ones – they couldn’t increase tuition if they believed such increases were warranted to stay financially afloat.

Mounting this kind of regulatory effort would probably scattershot at best, whatever the merits of the inquiry.

But, in the Wall Street Journal story, reporter Bret Baier interviewed
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and the senator responded in this way:

“BAIER: Last thing, student loan forgiveness.  This is a big debate.  And, you know, you talk about working families.  You talk about folks who don’t go to college and you’re talking about wiping out student debt.

“There is a former Education Department lawyer served under President Obama who wrote:  If this issue is litigated, the more persuasive analysis tends to support the conclusion that the Executive Branch likely does not have the unilateral authority to engage in mass student debt cancellation.

“Where are you?  Does it have the authority and are you for this?

“MURPHY:  I think it has the authority to do it.  I would support a more limited forgiveness of debt.  I’m one of the few members of the Senate that still has student debt.  I don’t need my debt forgiven.

“I also think that this focus on debt excuses the colleges for this dramatic increase in tuition.  I sometimes think that our party spends a little bit too much time talking about the debt and not enough time talking about the cost of the degree, because that’s where the real problem is.

“We’re going to be in a perpetual cycle of having to forgive debt if college continues to spiral upwards to $100,000 a year.

“So, I think a limited debt forgiveness proposal is legal.  I would support it, but I think it’s a mistake to put all of our eggs in a basket.”

Murphy is right.  The student debt issue is more than about those who have incurred debt.  It is about those who have imposed the debt.

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.

This is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.  No one tells me what to do.

So, here goes.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  Editorial writer Allysia Finley wrote about California under this headline:  “Can Michael Shellenberger Beat Gavin Newsom?  The Democrat turned independent candidate for California governor thinks a little common sense can go a long way in the Golden State.”

Here is how she started her piece:

“California Governor Gavin Newsom handily survived a recall election last fall by smearing his Republican opponents as Donald Trump toadies. While the recall didn’t defeat Mr. Newsom, it also didn’t make him politically stronger.

“Frustration with Covid lockdowns has receded, but anger over the state’s myriad other problems—crime, homelessness, lousy schools, high energy and housing costs, and electricity blackouts, among other things—hasn’t waned. Disapproval of Newsom’s job performance, especially among independents, has risen since the recall.

“Enter Michael Shellenberger, 50, a former Democrat running for governor as an independent.  His political evolution resembles the cartoon recently tweeted by Elon Musk —a stationary guy in the center left of the political spectrum finds himself being pulled to the center right as his fellow liberals sprint the other way.

“A self-described ‘eco-modernist,’ Shellenberger has plenty of company in the Golden State.  Most Californians aren’t nearly as liberal as the state’s political class, but Republicans have struggled to win statewide in part because their anti-immigrant rhetoric and cultural conservatism have turned off Hispanics and young people.  Shellenberger is testing whether a political moderate running on quality-of-life issues can break the progressive stranglehold on Sacramento.

“He’s also a bona fide environmentalist.  In 2004, he rose to prominence by co-authoring an essay criticizing the green movement as arrogant and politically insular.  ‘Environmentalism is just another special interest,’ he wrote.  ‘Environmentalists ask not what we can do for non-environmental constituencies but what non-environmental constituencies can do for environmentalists.’”

Comment:  Shellenberger is a breath of fresh air in California, which needs it desperately. 

Newsom and his cronies are driving businesses away, despite the tax revenue they provide to fund government.

It will be interesting to see if an Independent can rise in California and, as different as California and Oregon are from each other, though they share a south border, the race down south could have implications in Oregon.  An Independent is running for governor here, too…Betsy Johnson, who will go directly to the November general election.

ALSO FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  Republican Senator Rick Scott from Florida asks a good question this week as he writes about abortion:  “Democrats: When Do You Think Life Begins?

He adds:

“Politicians dodge the question, but the scientific answer is clear:  At the moment of conception.

“The Republican position on abortion is based on a fundamental belief that life begins at conception.  It’s a conclusion grounded in faith and values, but also in science.

“We know that unborn babies can feel pain very early.  We know that after six weeks a baby’s heartbeat can be heard in the womb.  Modern sonograms show unborn babies smiling, yawning and sucking their thumbs.

“Put simply, science has revealed that an unborn baby is a human being, and voters agree.  According to recent polling conducted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, 73 per cent of voters agree that an unborn baby is a human being.”

Comment:  I have tried to avoid commenting on the abortion debate now roiling the country because I don’t think I have much to add.  But this question from Scott strikes me as a good one.  The answer won’t stop the debate, nor does it deal with the intricacies of the subject.  But it is, at least, thought-provoking.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  Editorial writers went on record this week opposing abortion pickets going to the homes of U.S. Supreme Court justices to express their opposition to the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade.

“To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic.  It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary.

“Critics of reversing Roe maintain, defensibly, that to overturn such a long-standing precedent would itself violate core judicial principles.  Yet, if basic social consensus and the rule of law are to be sustained — and if protesters wish to maximize their own persuasiveness — demonstrations against even what many might regard as illegitimate rulings must respect the rights of others.  And they must be lawful.

“A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas, but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh residences.  A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits ‘pickets or parades’ at any judge’s residence, ‘with the intent of influencing’ a jurist ‘in the discharge of his duty.’

“These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly.  Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit.  If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.”

Comment:  Well, guess what?  The Washington Post agrees with me.  Or, perhaps better said, I agree with the Post. 

There is a time and a place for protests and demonstrations and the place never occurs at the homes of public officials – be then judges on a court, legislators, or Executive Branch officials involved in the reasons the protests. 

Homes and families ought to be sacrosanct.

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.

This sounds like another “words matter” blog from me, but it’s more about golf than words.

Other than this introduction.

I have come across three words lately that tend to roll off the tongue, but not just that – they sound good. 

The words?  Kerfuffle.  Roil.  And, now, quirky.

As for quirky, my latest edition of Links Magazine carried an article about “quirky golf holes.”  The writer, Tony Dear, put it this way:

“Quirky can mean different things and it’s hard to put a finger on its exact definition because so often it depends on our personal experience, its context, and the surroundings.  But whatever words we use to describe ‘quirk,’ one thing is for sure — we know it when we see it.”

Dear added this:

“The wonderful coastal courses in Cornwall, England, gave me my first taste of quirk as a teenager.  Lelant (West Cornwall) had a few holes on the front nine that crisscrossed; Mullion on the south coast had a near vertical drop-shot par three and a couple of really provocative clifftop holes; and the James Braid-designed Church Course at St. Enodoc on the north coast had a par four with a gargantuan bunker dug into the front of a 140-foot-tall sand dune as well as numerous other idiosyncrasies.”

Tom Doak, architect of Pacific Dunes, Streamsong Blue, Tara Iti, and a host of others, says he only cares about how well a hole plays rather than if it passes the quirk test.

Yet, Doak is a huge fan of St. Enodoc and enjoys all its oddities, chief among them the drive at the brilliant 323-yard 4th.  “You hit over the corner of a farmer’s field, which is OB, to get the best angle into the green,” he says.  “It’s much like the tee shot at the Road Hole at St. Andrews—another great quirky hole—only more visible.”

So, what is a quirky golf hole?

Ask the architect, Doak, and he will say:  “A quirky feature is one that’s unexpected or unusual and which you don’t normally see on a golf course. That could include things like blind shots and severe contours in odd places like the middle of the fairway or right next to the green.   Or the stone wall in front of the 13th green at North Berwick (West).”

Or, I add, the 6^th at Riviera in the Los Angeles area which has a pot bunker in the middle of the green.

For something to be genuinely quirky, though, Doak believes it has to be controversial.  “Some people are going to love it,” he says, “and some golfers are going to hate it at the moment it gets the better of them.”

As a golfer, I am like others – I know a quirky golf hole when I see one.  I have played the Road Hole at St. Andrews three times and it always is just that, quirky, as you hit a tee ball over part of the old St. Andrews Hotel.

I have played North Berwick in Scotland when you hit a ball over a stone wall that bisects the fairway.  I never have played Riviera, but it would be fun to play over or around the middle-of-the-green bunker.

I also have played “my” home course in Salem, Oregon, for more than 35 years.  And we had a quirky hole on the course — #17 – until we made the good decision several years ago to rebuild it.

It was supposed to be patterned after a type of hole in Scotland that has come to have a name – a “Redan hole.”

So, what is it?

Here’s more than you may want to know.

The term Redan originates from a French word for part of a fortification.  It is an arrow or V-shaped embankment toward the expected point of attack.  Redans were common features in Malta in the 17th and 18th centuries and the Russians later used the design in defense of Napoleon and the French.

So, what does Redan have to do with golf?

Redan golf holes are well defended, like the military fortification for which they’re named.  The green is offset close to a 45-degree angle moving from right to left and is guarded on the front left by a large, deep bunker.  Usually seen in its original par-3 form, the Redan often plays as a mid-length to long par-3 to force longer irons and lower trajectory shots.  They can range anywhere from 170 to 240 yards.

The green slopes from the front right to back left (or vice versa on a reverse Redan).  A common identifying feature is a large shoulder or hump on the front right of the green to help funnel balls back.  While there are many different versions of the Redan, the traditional one has the front bunker and a second one situated behind the shoulder to catch all long shots.  The common pin positions on Redans are in the middle or back of the green.  It’s a genius design because it forces players to aim away from the hole in order to get it close.

The par-3 15th at North Berwick is known as the original Redan, though no single architect has been credited for designing the hole.

See, more than you want to know?

The old Redan hole at Illahe didn’t measure up to the qualities of a Redan hole.  It was quirky, at best, and, frankly, not much fun to play because it was so poorly designed.

Overall, I like well-designed quirky holes such as the 17^th at St. Andrews, the 15^th at North Berwick, and the 6^th at Riviera.  They play well and serve as an attraction for golfers – just as does the new 17^th at Illahe, which fits the rest of the course. 

I never tire of playing the 17^th hole or the rest of the course.

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.

A quote in the Washington Post caught my attention when it dealt with a topic that is top-of-mind in the fallout from the leak of a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

When are protests appropriate and, more to the point, where should they be allowed?

Even at the homes of Supreme Court justices in the wake of the leaked opinion?

Here is the Post’s story on the subject:

“Notable & Quotable: Homes

“We want people to protest peacefully if they want to—to protest.”

Press secretary Jen Psaki at a May 5 White House briefing:

“Q: These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices.  Is that the kind of thing this President wants to help your side make their point?

“MS. PSAKI: Look, I think the President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.  We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected.  We want people to protest peacefully if they want to—to protest.  That is certainly what the President’s view would be.

“Q: So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?

“MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”

For all Psaki’s credibility as the president’s press secretary (in my opinion, she has done a good job in a tough position, but she is leaving the post to join MSNBC), I wish she would have gone firmly on record against protests outside justices’ homes.

Further, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning that an outfit known as Ruth Sent Us is inviting people to harass six “extremist justices.”  The group, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, published the locations of the justices’ homes in a map on its website.

In one case the other day, a women walked through the Chevy Chase neighborhood and paused to stick fliers on her fence, a tree and utility boxes.  She was conducting her own protest right in in front of the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In another case – I don’t include this because it, in any way, rivals abortion protests — the Oregonian newspaper reported over the weekend that “dozens of mothers and their supporters gathered at Woodstock Park and walked to Governor Kate Brown’s house nearby.

“The group of mothers, many holding roses, formed a circle outside Brown’s house and held hands to share their stories about their child or loved ones.”

The location may have been suspect, but the good news here – if “good news” is the accurate description – is that this group of mothers, on Mothers’ Day, was peaceful and respectful.

Everyone has the right to protest, but protesting or demonstrating at the homes of public officials shouldn’t be allowed.

For me, all of this recalled to mind experiences I had during my time involved in labor dispute issues – two for the State of Oregon, and one when I lobbied for a major health care provider in the state.

In the State of Oregon issue, I was assigned to handle media relations for management during two different state employee strikes many years ago.  In both cases, some employees were so riled up that they protested at the homes of state management officials. 

Those protests should have been banned and the protesters should have been told to leave, or be subject to arrest if they refused.  Allow them to picket at state agency sites?  Yes.  But protests at managers’ homes?  No.

In the other example when I represented the major health care provider in Oregon, union leaders thought it would be a good idea, when the provider’s board members were staying at a Portland hotel, to protest at the doors of their hotel rooms.

These union leaders were demanding that provider hold a union election even though employees had not voted to hold such an election.

Should that have been allowed?  No.

There is a time and a place for protests. 

The time should be up to those who want to protest.  The place should be in the public square where such protests are legal, however over-the-top they may turn out to be.

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.

No, the issue is not abortion, though the good word “roiling” applies to that, too, as the country reacts to the leak of a U.S. Supreme draft opinion scrapping Roe v. Wade.

I prefer not to write about abortion, but I have a chance to play a few holes of golf this week with retired Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul DeMuniz and, along the way, he bemoaned the loss of confidentiality for the top court in the land.

The issue for this blog, though, is college debt and whether to forgive it.

Columnist Matt Bai writes well about the issue in today’s Washington Post in a piece appearing under this headline:

“If Biden wipes out college debt, why work hard and play by the rules?”

Bai remembers a phrase uttered by none other than former President Bill Clinton who rescued a flailing Democrat Party several years ago by saying this:  “Government should reward those who work hard and play by the rules.”

Bai adds:

“If President Biden moves ahead with a sweeping executive order to wipe out college debt, it will mark a final repudiation of that ideal — and another step toward restoring the party to its pre-Clinton futility.

“One of Clinton’s core critiques of the party, which had lost three straight presidential elections, was that it had become known as the party of giveaways.  Democrats wanted to throw government money at every problem, but they asked nothing of people in return, demanded no accountability.”

Work hard, with no rules.

By contrast, Bai says Clinton believed government’s job was to incent work and personal responsibility, rather than penalize it.  From that belief sprang such policies as the vast expansion of the earned-income tax credit and welfare reform.

In terms of college debt, a lot of families made difficult decisions not to accrue such debt.  Parents chose to forgo retirement savings or nicer houses in order to sock money away for college.  Students chose cheaper state schools over private colleges, or they decided to pass on college altogether.

Millions of other graduates who did take out loans worked for years or decades to pay them off, making their own set of painful career and family sacrifices along the way.

Bai asks:

“What are we telling those families, if Democrats declare a one-time debt holiday in time for the fall elections?  That all their hard choices amounted to a sucker’s bet?

“These families followed Clinton’s advice — they worked hard and played by the rules.  Some Democrats would treat them now like fans who sat too far from the T-shirt cannon at a football game.”

Compromises could exist in the back and forth about debt.

Here are some that have struck my wife and I as we talked about the issue this morning:

• What about a proposal that knocked off a modest amount of debt for only the lowest earners and only for undergraduate study?
• What about a proposal to reward borrowers who chose careers in public service, or to expand an Obama Administration program helping those who got scammed by for-profit colleges?
• If a student took a low-paying job in an economically-deprived area on the premise that at least part of their college debt would be forgiven, what about a proposal to restore that incentive, especially if had been jerked away?
• What about a proposal to provide some relief for students, who, with their parents, chose less expensive state schools over high-priced private schools?

Bai’s conclusion: 

“If Biden makes college retroactively free for millions of borrowers, he’ll not only be sticking it to families who surely would have made less responsible choices had they known they’d never have to repay their debt. He’ll also be steering Democrats back to the 1980s, when they were branded as the party of the proverbial free lunch.” So, I urge the Biden Administration to be careful, even if some advocate forgiving debt as a campaign strategy in the upcoming mid-term election.  Find middle ground, which still would be controversial, though it does exi