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 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.

Hill.com showed up last week with a list of what it called “the…most damaging allegations” against Donald Trump that have emerged so far based on the House Committee’s work investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

I reprint those allegations below, but, before doing so, I add my own allegation which I believe could top any list.

It is this:  Trump hates this country and illustrated his hatred by fomenting a riot in the Nation’s Capital, one designed, like actions of a despot, to steal an election he had lost.  Like the narcissist he is, he refused to accept defeat, believing that everyone and everything revolved around him.

And, now, truth be told, despite all of the potential criminal actions he has taken, he is toying with running again for president.  Perish that notion.

So, beyond that leading allegation – mine — here is a summary of what hill.com wrote, with, first, a couple leading paragraphs:

“The panel, comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans critical of Trump — Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — has laid out a compelling case against the former president.

“By the panel’s account, Trump knew his claims of election fraud were bogus, recklessly encouraged the January 6 rioters and endangered his own vice president as members of a mob marching on the Capitol called for Mike Pence’s hanging.”

Hill.com’s list:

• Even the president’s own daughter, Ivanka Trump accepted the fact that there was no widespread election fraud.  She just couldn’t convince her father.
• Trump knew the January 6 crowd had weapons — and wanted to join them at the Capitol anyway, armed and ready to fight, even kill.
• Trump’s own campaign manager balked at fraud claims and was proud to be on ‘Team Normal.’  Trump didn’t care.
• And, Trump thought Mike Pence deserved to hang because Pence wouldn’t do his bidding.

I could go on.  The January 6 investigative panel has cited numerous additional instances of Trump’s crimes.  More is to come, especially on the basis of testimony from Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone.

Alone, this list of Trump’s misdeeds, including my leading proposal for such a list, plus Trump’s typical abnormal behavior, should prompt Americans to drop him from a list of any potential, future presidents.  It also should prompt law enforcement and legal authorities to subject him to penalties for his abhorrent conduct.

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 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 we anticipate the start of “The Open” – yes, “THE OPEN”, not the “British Open” – it is a good time for me to reflect on highlights from a tournament I fully enjoy watching.

To underline, all Brits think of their event as “The Open.”  And, if you happen to be over in Europe and use the term “The British Open,” you will be disregarded or perhaps even fined by the purists there.

But, “The Open” is a great event, one I have watched over the years with interest and excitement.  Part of that is that The Open is often played on “links-style” courses that require a different kind of golf – playing the ball closer to the ground in contrast to most courses in America which require playing to a series of targets, often with high shots.

In the U. S., it’s called “parkland golf.”  [There are some links-style courses in the U.S. notably at Bandon Dunes, as well as Tetherow in Bend, Oregon, but, most of the time, you play here on parkland courses.]

Back in 2013, my family and I were in Scotland and my daughter was kind of enough to acquire Open tickets for all of us – my wife and myself, my daughter, and my daughter’s two kids – to watch the final round which was held at Muirfield.

It was – and is – a great course in Scotland.  Several years previously, it had hosted the British Mid-Am and our son, Eric, played in that event.  We were on hand as part of his gallery for a first-rate experience in Scottish golf.

At any rate, in 2013, we watched Phil Mickelson win The Open, his first triumph on a kind of course he had to learn to play after growing up in America.  I still remember when we were in a relatively small grandstand on the 13^th hole, a par 3 where Mickelson hit a 200-yard shot to a small green.  It landed 10-feet from the hole.  He made the putt and went on play well from then on to win his first and only Open title.

There was no room for us in the 18^th hole grandstands; plus, you had to pay extra to get a seat there, so we didn’t mind not doing so.

So, we watched on a big screen about 100 yards from the 18^th green as Mickelson won and hugged his caddie, Jim “Bones” MacKay, who has family roots in Scotland.  A great scene, even on a screen as we listened top the roars of approval.

Frankly, Mickelson has gone down in my estimation as he bolted recently to join the new LIV Tour, but his past accomplishments, including The Open victory in 2013, are worthy of respect, including mine.

In my current on-line edition of Links Magazine, writer Joe Passov captured some of the style of The Open as the event heads to the iconic Old Course in St. Andrews.

“Many Yanks still call it ‘the British Open.’  The rest of the world properly refers to golf’s oldest major as ‘The Open Championship.’

“Whatever your preference, this storied tournament will contest its 150th edition this July, when St. Andrews plays host for the 30th time.  Firm, fast-running seaside links courses pair with wind, rain, insidious pot bunkers, and rough dotted with heather and gorse bushes to offer a supreme challenge year after year.

“Amid the pressure of competing to win the Claret Jug trophy, it’s easy to see why the tournament’s greatest moments linger long in memory.

Passov cites five of what he calls “the great moments” in Open history at St. Andrews:

• European golfer Costantino Rocca rocks St. Andrews with a sinfully sensational putt (1995)
• American icon Tiger Woods blitzes the field and the Old Course (2000)
• Perhaps the best golfer in American history, Jack Nicklaus fulfills his destiny in a wild St. Andrews triumph (1970)
• Arnold Palmer, who energized the PGA Tour, re-energizes the Open Championship (1961)
• The duo of Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus soar in their “Duel in the Sun.” (1977)

I did not have a chance to watch all of these “bests,” but I do remember Rocca’s win in 1995 (when he collapsed on the ground as the long putt made it into the hole).  I also remember watching Woods’ victory in 2000.

I’ll be waiting this year for another “best” to emerge.  Join me.

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.

What are Republicans up to these days?

For one thing, they are divided.  And, if you want to understand just how divided they are, look only so far as this quote from the New York Times:

“The powerful testimony from a parade of Republicans, in four tightly produced hearings, has exposed, in searing and consequential detail, how divided the party has become between the faction that accepts the reality of the 2020 election and the many more who still cling to Trump’s anti-democratic falsehoods about a stolen election.”

And, in riveting testimony under oath last week, an aide in the Trump White House, Cassidy Hutchinson, only added to Republican divisions. 

Some Republicans were concerned about her testimony which clearly implicated Donald Trump in trying, by violent means, to overthrow American democracy.

Others, despite the incredible evidence Hutchinson provided, chose to stick with Trump, presumably on the basis that they still believed in his ability to draw votes for their future candidacies.

The reality, of course, is that, in many general Republican circles, Trump does continue to hold sway.  It is possible that he could run for president in 2024 as some voters continue to fawn over him, which is just what he wants as a narcissist. 

The dark prospect for rational government gets even darker as contentions persist that President Joe Biden will be too old to run again.  And, though he says he will run, it is not clear who Democrats will turn to if he decides one term is enough.

Back to Republicans.  They have no shame.  Many of them just view what happened on January 6 as another celebration of their views that Trump didn’t lose and that he should go to any extreme to avoid the tag of “loser.”

Two recent quotes from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post tell this story as well as I can, if not better.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “They [the congressional hearings on the January 6 insurrections] are telling a fascinating and devastating story:  An American president tried to thwart the democracy that raised him high and to steal a presidential election he’d lost.

“And it almost worked.  But good people stopped it. There was a sturdy infrastructure of still-moral elected officials and bureaucrats and political appointees.  Against pressure, intimidation and mob rule they held. Many, most, were political conservatives, and many were people of deep religious faith.

“In explaining their motives and way of thinking on January 6, they quoted Scripture.  For Greg Jacobs, counsel to Mike Pence who was with the vice president in an undisclosed location on January 6, it was the lion’s den: “Daniel 6 was where I went.”

“Chief of staff Marc Short at the end of the terrible day texted Pence 2 Timothy 4:7:  “I fought the good fight, I finished the race, I have kept the faith.”  Rusty Bowers, speaker of Arizona’s House, testified he believes the writers of the U.S. Constitution were inspired by God. “I took an oath” to that document, he said.  And he wouldn’t break it.”

FROM COLUMNIST GEORGE WILL IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “America the beautiful is today America the irritable, where road rage, unruly airline passengers and political violence — a protective fence surrounds the court — reveal a nation of short fuses and long-simmering resentments.  

“Intelligent people disagree about how, or even whether, the facts of contemporary civic culture should influence how the Constitution, including the first 10 amendments, should be construed.  But as a founder (John Adams) insisted, facts are stubborn things.”

Thus, with all the posturing, especially among Republicans, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that we could be heading toward another “civil war,” if the word “civil” even applies to the word “war.”

And, dissension over abortion, fomented by heightened by rhetoric on both (or all) sides, will only aggravate the risks.

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 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 headline on this blog is similar to one that appeared on a commentary by Hugh Hewitt that ran in the Washington Post last weekend.

In a few words, it makes the contention that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on environmental protection really was about more than just that  general issue.  It was about the balance of power between administrative agencies and Congress in this country.

The court’s decision resides with requiring legislators to make decisions about how far administrative agencies can go in regulating public actions.  The gut-level conclusion:  Agencies cannot take aggressive action on their own, such as was the case with the Environment Protection Agency, without specific legislative action to back up the action.

Columnist Hewitt made the point in these lead paragraphs:

“The formal adoption of the ‘major questions doctrine’ by a solid six-justice majority in West Virginia v. EPA on June 30 was covered by the media as primarily, if not exclusively, a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations to combat global climate change.

“The news coverage largely missed the decision’s true significance.  That’s understandable.  Most journalists are not familiar with the far-reaching tentacles of the federal administrative state.  The court’s ruling certainly was a setback for the ‘pen and phone’ brigade of progressives who believe a progressive president ought to be able to use phone or e-mail to order Executive Branch agencies to do whatever he or she determines is necessary and proper.

“But that’s not how the Constitution spells it out:  Ours is a Constitution-bound government, whose powers are enumerated by that document.”

Hewitt added:  “Administrative agencies established by the Congress have been put on notice by the Supreme Court not to take action on controversies or issues — no matter how pressing those issues are believed to be — unless first given direction by Congress on the ‘major questions’ the agency would like to answer in whole or part by regulation.”

Put another way, federal bureaucrats cannot do what they have been doing for several years – acting on their own because they think they know best.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Kimberley Strassel adds this:

“Sweep away the opinion’s numbing technical descriptions, and the ruling is a joy to read.  The six conservatives on the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, have officially declared the ‘major questions doctrine’—a concept that has appeared in a handful of past court decisions—to be a living, breathing principle.  The federal bureaucracy is no longer allowed to impose programs of major ‘economic and political significance’ on the country absent ‘clear congressional authorization.’ Hallelujah.”

In the court case, Roberts used, as Hewitt put it, “a stiletto of a single sentence to gut the overreaching ambitions of federal agencies everywhere, not just the EPA’s overreach.”

“About the EPA’s attempt to invent the provenance for its climate change regulations, — ‘There is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency.’”  

All of this could apply, for example, to the Federal Trade Commission and its regulations of “Big Tech’s” data-collection practices, and for any agency seeking to control what Congress has not explicitly given it authority to control.  

Hewitt concludes:  “The unelected and unaccountable have been grabbing power for decades.  More such hacking back of the overgrowth cannot arrive soon enough.  The federal circuit and district courts will read this decision and get to work.  Good.  Hurry.”

As a lobbyist over about 25 years in Oregon, I frequently encountered aggressive attempts by unelected bureaucrats to go beyond the law, especially in health care and environmental issues.  They thought they knew better than those elected to make such decisions.

It bothered me then.  It bothered my clients.  And, it bothers me today as I reflect back on those occasions.

Good for the Supreme Court to underline the distinction.

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 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.

Fair warning.

This is a blog about dogs.

So, if you are not a “dog lover,” no need to read on.

However, for those who love dogs – my wife and I are among that group – read on for a good experience.

We have had the great experience of living with two dogs – Hogan, who is now looking down at house from heaven, and Callaway, who is with us today.  Both were and are miniature poodles.

If they had vocal chords, they could speak – they are that smart.

Today, there is no better way to laud dogs than to reprint a column by Michael Gerson that appeared in the Washington Post.

He loves his dogs!

First, just a bit about Gerson.  He is an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post where he has been since he served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 through 2006. 

He also has endured bouts with cancer and depression and, in both cases, he makes the point below that having a dog brought him through both.

His column appeared under this headline:  Why I will never live without a dog again:  Read on.

Error! Filename not specified.

Everyone must take a summer break from the relentless negativity of the news, which unfortunately reflects the relentless negativity of reality.  So let me introduce you to Jack.

Jack is a puppy I picked up last week, eight months after the death of my much-loved Havanese, Latte.  As soon as I brought Jack home — a powder puff of black and white, curvetting in the grass, all fluff and playful fury — I was reminded of the quandary and question that greets dog owners:  Why do we take new dogs into our lives, knowing we will be decimated by their deaths?

I grieved hard for my Latte, who was the dog equivalent of St. Francis of Assisi — a little hairy mammal (Latte, not Francis) who radiated universal benevolence.  She was a consoling, healing presence during the worst of my struggles against depression and cancer.  In a very real sense, Latte was a better person than I am — a daily practitioner of the hardest parts of the Sermon on the Mount.  She was meek, merciful (except to those godless squirrels), peaceable and pure of heart.  At her departure, I was the one who mourned.

I can still feel the ache at night.  Not long ago, my wife told me I had been crying in my sleep. I  don’t usually recall my dreams.  But, in this case, I remembered dreaming about the last time I saw Latte, after she was taken out of my arms to be euthanized at the veterinary hospital.  She lifted her head and looked back me with her large, sad eyes.  And then one of the most steadfast, lavish, uncomplicated sources of affection in my life was gone.  (Even now I can hardly write the words.)  She died, aptly, of an enlarged heart.

The 18th-century evangelist John Wesley gave a sermon, “The General Deliverance,” on the survival of animals in the afterlife — a very English line of theological argument.  (Many Brits regard the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show as a preview of heaven.)  The Creator, said Wesley, “saw, with unspeakable pleasure, the order, the beauty, the harmony, of all the creatures.”  Wesley believed that during the end-time renewal of the world (a basic Christian doctrine), the “whole brute creation will then, undoubtedly, be restored, not only to the vigor, strength and swiftness which they had at their creation, but to a far higher degree of each than they ever enjoyed.”

For most of my life, I lived in dogless ignorance and would have mocked such sentiments.  (It is so typical of Homo sapiens to regard heaven as their own exclusive club.)  I now hope that cross-species friendships of such intensity do not end in permanent partings.  Everything truly good in life must leave some eternal imprint.  Or pawprint.  When I am not crying in my sleep, I now feel such gratitude for an animal willing to comfort another animal during some of the most trying days of his life.  All without expectation of reward — except the occasional dried pig’s ear.

In human relationships, the transforming presence of love is worth the inevitability of grief.  Can dogs really love?  Science might deny that the species possesses such complex emotions.  But I know dogs can act in a loving fashion and provide love’s consolations.  Which is all we really know about what hairless apes can manage in the love department as well.

So I — who once saw dogs as dirty and dangerous — am resolved to never live without one again.  This led to the gift from my kind wife of Jack, the Havanese fuzz ball.  After my dreary brushes with mortality, I needed new life in my life.  And Jack is the bouncy incarnation of innocent joy.  Waking up on the day of his arrival was like Christmas when I was 9.

On brief acquaintance, Jack is the best dog in the universe.  During his first night with us, he slept for eight hours in the crate in our bedroom.  There were a few bleats of homesick protest, but they were quickly stilled by my voice, by his knowing I was near.  Why would a puppy just torn from his home, his litter and his parents place immediate faith in us?  This is one thing that makes the abuse of such animals so monstrous.  It is not only the expression of the human capacity for sick cruelty; it is the violation of a trust so generously given.

There is an obstacle in training Havanese dogs.  When you try to instill discipline, they employ a thermonuclear cuteness that melts all intentions of firmness.  But what other object can you bring into your home that makes you smile every time you see it? J ack is a living, yipping, randomly peeing antidepressant.  He improves the mental health of all who encounter him.

Why do we take in new dogs?  Because their joy for living renews our own.

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 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 am not sure I need to write anything on this July 4^th.

Still, I persist.

So, on this Independence Day, I reflect two thoughts:

• On one hand, I worry about what this country is becoming, one which prizes disagreement over reasoned discussion.   And, it is often said, if you don’t agree with me, I hate you or I even may shoot you.
• On the other hand, I know this country has withstood challenges in the past and emerged stronger.  I say that as a person who lived through the Vietnam War (I came close to going, though I served in the military in this country, while I saw friends killed or maimed in that unjust war) and Watergate, the latter now 50 years in the rearview mirror.

Arguably, our country recovered from both of those tragedies and could recover from the new ones we face today.

By the way, what is the history of Independence Day anyway?

This:  The Fourth of July — also known as Independence Day — has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1941.  But the full tradition of Independence Day celebrations goes back to the 18th century and the American Revolution.

On this day, this year, 2022, I share Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne’s aspiration:

“I (Dionne says) had hoped to write a thoroughly celebratory column about the Fourth of July.  It’s when we come together to cheer a nation that has struggled for 246 years to make the principle of equality a reality.

“And even this disconcerting moment does not make me feel any less grateful that this is my country.  I’m devoted to its boisterous freedom, its energetic inventiveness, its rambunctious culture, its democratic aspirations, and its welcome mat (yes, occasionally pulled back) for people from around the world.”

At the same time, I agree with New York Times writer Peter Baker who said this about American democracy in view of the person who has set out to destroy it, Donald Trump:

“And so nearly two and a half centuries after the 13 American colonies declared independence from an unelected king, the nation is left weighing a somber new view of the fragility of its democracy — and the question of what, if anything, could and should be done about it.”

What Baker means is what the country should do about Trump.

Even so, I persist in holding out hope for our future as a nation.

Happy 4^th.

And this footnote:  One our nation’s symbols, the American flag, has been co-opted by Trump and his minions.  Still, I display the flag on our house here in Salem, Oregon, and I do so as a pledge to keep the flag as a symbol of genuine American democracy, which is what it stands for no matter the co-option.

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 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.

So, which one, given that there are three?

The answer?  Of course, Betsy Johnson.

She is running as an independent, facing off against the Democrat, former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, and the Republican, former Oregon House Minority Leader Christine Drazan.

Political analysts believe Johnson has a genuine chance to win, rating winning as “possible,” though “not probable.”

Johnson has a gift for turning a phrase that engenders media coverage.

Such was the case this week when she was interviewed by the New York Times.  Here is what the Times wrote:

“Portland’s homelessness crisis is animating Johnson’s campaign.  One of her TV ads shows her driving around the city’s encampments.  ‘No more tent cities,’ she says.  Johnson didn’t mince words:  ‘You can see the deterioration of the beautiful City of Roses, now the city of roaches.’”

Some Portland residents might be offended by Johnson’s comment, but, no doubt, she thought about the risks before speaking. 

Her criticism could resonate with many Portlanders who are tired of homeless encampments, local protests (on all sides), higher crime rates (including murders), and the apparent inability of the city’s leaders to do anything about it.

I grew up in Portland, but, now, given the deterioration of the central city, I try to avoid going back home, except to drive through the city on the way to someplace else – or, perhaps, to visit my two brothers who still there, though not in the strike-torn downtown area.

Here is more of what the Times reporter, Reid J. Epstein, wrote:

“Almost nobody in Oregon seems to be happy.

“In Portland, just 8 per cent of residents think their city is on the right track, according to a May poll from Oregon Public Broadcasting.  East of the Cascade Mountains, nine counties are so fed up with Democrat control of the state that they have voted to leave the state to join Idaho.

“Only Democrats have served as Oregon’s governor since 1987, but the party, weighed down by soaring gas prices, inflation, and President Biden’s unpopularity, is in so much trouble in this year’s mid-term elections that even deep-blue Oregon is suddenly competitive.

“Portland, like many other cities in the U.S., has seen a rise in homelessness and violent crime.  Visiting the city’s downtown in recent years has been an exercise in navigating its sprawling homeless encampments — an issue that polling shows is top of mind for the state’s voters.  And homicides jumped to at least 90 last year, from 36 in 2019.”

So, enter Johnson, along with her ability to utter pithy quotes.

Here is how the Times describes Johnson:

“She is a helicopter pilot whose signature Liz Claiborne eyeglasses are embedded in her campaign logo.  She has raised far more money than both Kotek and Drazan.  Johnson has also earned an array of high-profile endorsements from members of both parties.  Much of her fund-raising has come from Oregon’s corporate moguls, including more than $1 million from the Nike founder Phil Knight.

“Democrats say they believe Johnson will take more votes from the Republican base than from their own.  But they are spending as if she is a real threat, creating a PAC to attack her as an obstacle to environmental progress, and gun control.  (Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre, Johnson told a group of high school students that she owned a machine gun.  She said it was “a Cold War artifact” and she still had it.)”

As will be the case in many high-level political races around the country, abortion also will be a major issue.

In Oregon, Drazan, the Republican nominee, is anti-abortion and pro-Trump, a change from the moderates Oregon Republicans have nominated for governor in recent years.  Her campaign believes she could win the three-way race with just 40 per cent of the vote — the same percentage Donald Trump took in 2020.

By contrast, Kotek and Johnson favor abortion rights.  Johnson served on the board of the local Planned Parenthood chapter, while Kotek led passage of legislation in 2017 that expanded state-funded abortion access.

So, on to the general election next November. 

Kotek is still the favorite to win.  Oregon Democrats have significant structural advantages — there are just more of them than anyone else.  But it’s not a sure thing, and Democrats are sweating the result for the first time in years.

One of the reasons, perhaps the major one – the Independent Johnson is running and could pull votes from various Oregonians frustrated with the inability of either party to solve major problems facing the state.

Should be one of the most interesting governor’s races in Oregon in many years.

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 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.

So, which one, given that there are three?

The answer?  Of course, Betsy Johnson.

She is running as an independent, facing off against the Democrat, former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, and the Republican, former Oregon House Minority Leader Christine Drazan.

Political analysts believe Johnson has a genuine chance to win, rating winning as “possible,” though “not probable.”

Johnson has a gift for turning a phrase that engenders media coverage.

Such was the case this week when she was interviewed by the New York Times.  Here is what the Times wrote:

“Portland’s homelessness crisis is animating Johnson’s campaign.  One of her TV ads shows her driving around the city’s encampments.  ‘No more tent cities,’ she says.  Johnson didn’t mince words:  ‘You can see the deterioration of the beautiful City of Roses, now the city of roaches.’”

Some Portland residents might be offended by Johnson’s comment, but, no doubt, she thought about the risks before speaking. 

Her criticism could resonate with many Portlanders who are tired of homeless encampments, local protests (on all sides), higher crime rates (including murders), and the apparent inability of the city’s leaders to do anything about it.

I grew up in Portland, but, now, given the deterioration of the central city, I try to avoid going back home, except to drive through the city on the way to someplace else – or, perhaps, to visit my two brothers who still there, though not in the strike-torn downtown area.

Here is more of what the Times reporter, Reid J. Epstein, wrote:

“Almost nobody in Oregon seems to be happy.

“In Portland, just 8 per cent of residents think their city is on the right track, according to a May poll from Oregon Public Broadcasting.  East of the Cascade Mountains, nine counties are so fed up with Democrat control of the state that they have voted to leave the state to join Idaho.

“Only Democrats have served as Oregon’s governor since 1987, but the party, weighed down by soaring gas prices, inflation, and President Biden’s unpopularity, is in so much trouble in this year’s mid-term elections that even deep-blue Oregon is suddenly competitive.

“Portland, like many other cities in the U.S., has seen a rise in homelessness and violent crime.  Visiting the city’s downtown in recent years has been an exercise in navigating its sprawling homeless encampments — an issue that polling shows is top of mind for the state’s voters.  And homicides jumped to at least 90 last year, from 36 in 2019.”

So, enter Johnson, along with her ability to utter pithy quotes.

Here is how the Times describes Johnson:

“She is a helicopter pilot whose signature Liz Claiborne eyeglasses are embedded in her campaign logo.  She has raised far more money than both Kotek and Drazan.  Johnson has also earned an array of high-profile endorsements from members of both parties.  Much of her fund-raising has come from Oregon’s corporate moguls, including more than $1 million from the Nike founder Phil Knight.

“Democrats say they believe Johnson will take more votes from the Republican base than from their own.  But they are spending as if she is a real threat, creating a PAC to attack her as an obstacle to environmental progress, and gun control.  (Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre, Johnson told a group of high school students that she owned a machine gun.  She said it was “a Cold War artifact” and she still had it.)”

As will be the case in many high-level political races around the country, abortion also will be a major issue.

In Oregon, Drazan, the Republican nominee, is anti-abortion and pro-Trump, a change from the moderates Oregon Republicans have nominated for governor in recent years.  Her campaign believes she could win the three-way race with just 40 per cent of the vote — the same percentage Donald Trump took in 2020.

By contrast, Kotek and Johnson favor abortion rights.  Johnson served on the board of the local Planned Parenthood chapter, while Kotek led passage of legislation in 2017 that expanded state-funded abortion access.

So, on to the general election next November. 

Kotek is still the favorite to win.  Oregon Democrats have significant structural advantages — there are just more of them than anyone else.  But it’s not a sure thing, and Democrats are sweating the result for the first time in years.

One of the reasons, perhaps the major one – the Independent Johnson is running and could pull votes from various Oregonians frustrated with the inability of either party to solve major problems facing the state.

Should be one of the most interesting governor’s race in Oregon in many years.

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 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.

It is not news to recognize that the abortion debate, after the Supreme Court decision to toss out Roe V. Wade, is roiling the country.

Even to the extent of fomenting violence, including threats to the lives of members of the Court.

I usually avoid commenting on abortion because it is a subject so political that it defies rational give-and-take.  Plus, if I had ever thought of running for office – I never did – the issue of abortion alone would have made me stop.  I prefer to leave the abortion issue between a woman and her physician, with family involved of course.

That’s why, when I was a lobbyist, I (and the firm where I was a partner) never took on a client which had a pro-abortion or anti-abortion position.  As I said, there is no way to deal with the issue on the basis of facts, figures, and policy.

Also, as a male, I never wanted to be involved in a debate over policy which should better be left to women and physicians.

So, rather than writing about the issue myself today, I post below two columns that ran this week in the Washington Post.  In the main, I agree with the basic propositions in both, which is why I post them in this blog, with just a couple comments at the end of each reprint.  Still, despite what appears below, I want to keep the notion, perhaps inaccurate to a degree, that I have never entered the full abortion debate.

FROM COLUMNIST HENRY OLSEN UNDER THE TITLE, “THE HEART OF THE ABORTION DEBATE:  WHAT IS HUMAN LIFE?”

The Supreme Court’s overruling of the abortion-law precedents Roe and Casey is a massive victory for the conservative movement.  It is also the beginning of a long-overdue national debate on the most important question that abortion raises:

What is a human being?

I’ve wanted abortion outlawed all my adult life, so this is a joyous moment. The court has finally removed a shoddily reasoned, ungrounded barrier to the fulfillment of a desire that I share with tens of millions of Americans:  To protect human life from wanton destruction.

For that, we should be forever grateful to the courageous band of five justices who followed the law and their principles — and perhaps risked their lives, given the recent arrest of a man who allegedly sought to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — to protect the unborn.

Abortion rights advocates have long tried to look past that unborn person by exalting a woman’s autonomy.  But this is not about creating Margaret Atwood’s Gilead or somehow returning to the days when women had no vote and few property rights.  The women who largely lead the pro-life movement would not countenance enabling their own servitude.

That unborn child is the only reason abortion is, and ought to be, an issue of political discussion.  No rational person today believes that one human being ought to take the life of another because they want to.  Abortion on demand can be morally justified only if the entity whose life is extinguished is not a human being worthy of the legal protection any decent society provides.

This is not an easy question to decide.  Casey’s viability standard was an attempt to establish when a legal right to life is conferred, albeit without directly making that case.  Texas’s fetal heartbeat bill, which bans abortions after a heartbeat is detected, is another.  Others would draw the line in different places, with some saying the legal right to life begins at conception while others would place it well after viability.  No answer is immune from serious and well-intentioned criticism.

Making such difficult determinations, however, is at the heart of what democratic self-government is about.  If the people collectively cannot determine who counts as a person, then their ability to reason about other, less weighty matters surely must be called into question.

This debate will be painful and long.  My friends in the pro-life movement need to understand that we start this debate in the minority position.  Polls regularly show that a majority of Americans support legal abortion on demand during the first trimester.  That position makes sense only if our fellow Americans do not see a 13-week-old fetus, one that possesses a human brain and beating human heart, as a human being deserving of legal protection.  We in the pro-life movement will win only when they come to see that fetus as we do — as a tiny but very real human being.

All our efforts, then, must be placed toward winning that central debate. We cannot allow ourselves to be sidetracked into important but subsidiary discussions over things like importation of abortion pills into a state that bans abortion or whether to criminalize behavior that leads to interstate abortions.  Those matters are significant, but they are secondary to the primary issue.  The question of what defines human life worthy of legal protection is that issue; focusing on it should be our lodestar.

We will need to make many other commitments to win others’ trust.  A woman’s ability to secure and use effective contraception should be non-negotiable.  We must use all means, public and private, to care for pregnant women who need our help navigating the difficult times attending to an unexpected, and perhaps unwanted, pregnancy.

We must never lose sight of the sanctity and dignity that every woman’s life possesses, even as we seek to extend that understanding to the unborn.

The outcome we seek will come slowly, state by state.  Abortion regulation has traditionally been a state matter, and so it should remain.  State-level, democratic change will seem painfully slow to many.  But it is the only constitutionally proper way available, and that is the path we must embark upon.

But I hope and believe we will ultimately prevail.

COMMENT:  I give Olsen credit on two counts:  (1)  First, he shows courage by writing such a column for the Washington Post and his editors get credit for publishing it; and (2) he poses just the right question amidst all the controversy – what is human life and when does it begin?

FROM PSYCHOLOGIST REBECCA SUGAR IN THE WASHINGTON POST UNDER THE HEADLINE, “MY MIND ISN’T MADE UP ABOUT ABORTION; I’LL LISTEN TO REASON FROM BOTH SIDES, BUT IT’S BEEN IN SHORT SUPPLY FOR DECADES.”

I neither cried nor jumped for joy when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.  Abortion has never been among my top-priority issues when voting, and I don’t spend much time thinking about it.  That may be hard to believe, but it’s true for a lot of people.

Now that the justices have said it isn’t their job but ours to decide how to regulate abortion, both pro-choice and pro-life activists are going to have to do better if they want the sympathy and votes of Americans like me.  We can be persuaded with thoughtful, considered debate.  We haven’t gotten much of it.

I bumped into a pro-choice activist at Union Station in Washington shortly after the leak of the draft decision in May.  She held a big sign that read , “I LOVE MY ABORTION.”  I winced reflexively, as I do whenever celebrities proudly boast of their “empowering” terminations.  The inability to draw a line between the defense of a right to abortion and the celebration of its practice poisons the pro-choice message.

A word of advice to those who support abortion rights:  Don’t hire angry-looking women with fake blood on their pants to parade around screaming at the cameras.  And don’t let politicians continue to spin what just happened into a national abortion ban, or a war on women, which it isn’t.  These tactics repel people, rather than draw them in.  We will never hear a word you say.

Then there are pro-life activists like Lila Rose of Live Action, who said in an interview Friday:  “The science is conclusive.  Human life doesn’t begin at birth.  It begins before birth, at the moment of fertilization.”

A word of advice to those who are pro-life and want me to be as well:  Don’t confuse moral and ethical arguments with scientific ones.  We know the difference.  You are in possession of both to some degree, and I would like to hear them.  Both matter, and they inform each other, but they aren’t the same thing.  When you pretend they are, your case weakens.

As someone with no firm conviction on the question of abortion, I see the Supreme Court’s decision as an opportunity.  We now have the chance to unmask the activists on both sides who have been screaming at us from behind the safety of the existence of Roe for decades.  Neither side ever had to make its case, only put on a show.

Those days are over.  We finally get to see if either side has an intellectually honest, thoughtful argument to offer, or if they are what so many other activist groups are:  Home base for those addicted to moral outrage, and for the greedy opportunists making money and political careers off them.

COMMENT:  Note the last paragraph of this commentary.  Enough said.

But there is another important implication of what’s happened.  What will we do as Americans to help the children and mothers (fathers, too) who no longer will have the access to Roe V. Wade?

One of the periodicals I receive on-line answered this question very well:

“So, what’s next for the pro-life states that soon will have banned abortion?  Are they suddenly going to give those new babies and their families the educational, medical, or financial support necessary to lead a healthy life? Arguably, statistics show that pro-life states appear much more interested in restricting a woman’s reproductive choices than in protecting children’s well-being.”

All of us have an obligation to respond with grace and humility to the current status.