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.

“Candy-land?” 

Yes.  That’s what some golf rules analysts call the place where you tee up your golf ball.

Why?

Well, it’s because you can do almost anything there in contrast to any other area of a golf course that is not on the tee where you are playing.

In a previous blog, I wrote about my decision to sign up for a three-month golf rules seminar and it was there that I learned about this — what you are allowed to do on the tee you are playing.

There are a host of restrictions anywhere else – in the fairway, in a penalty area, in a bunker, on the green, or on tee other than the one you are on.

For all of you golf rules nuts, here’s the place where you can find the answer about what you can do on “your” tee: Rule #6(5) and (6).  In abbreviated form, here is the text:

“(5) Ball Is Not in Play Until Stroke Is Made. Whether the ball is teed or on the ground, when starting a hole or playing again from the teeing area under a rule:

• The ball is not in play until the player makes a stroke at it, and
• The ball may be lifted or moved without penalty before the stroke is made.

“If a teed ball falls off the tee or is knocked off the tee by the player before the player has made a stroke at it, it may be re-teed anywhere in the teeing area without penalty.

“But if the player makes a stroke at that ball while it is falling or after it has fallen off, there is no penalty, the stroke counts and the ball is in play.

“(6) When Ball in Play Lies in Teeing Area. If the player’s ball in play is in the teeing area after a stroke (such as a teed ball after a stroke that missed the ball) or after taking relief, the player may:

• Lift or move the ball without penalty (see Rule 9.4b, Exception 1), and
• Play that ball or another ball from anywhere in the teeing area from a tee or the ground under (2), including playing the ball as it lies.”

Frankly, I would not have known this information without taking the rules seminar.

To put it simply, if you are ready to make a swing at a ball on the tee and don’t do so yet, but the ball of its own volition falls off the tee, no penalty.  Just put the ball back on the tee and hit. 

But, if you take a swing and barely hit the ball off the tee so it remains in the teeing area, then you are allowed – surprise here, for me — to tee the ball up again before you take your next swing.  This would be your second shot since the first swing would count.

But, in either case, you don’t have to hit it off the ground without a tee.

I have said or written this before, but golf rules are nothing if not complicated.  One reason is that golf is played out-of-doors on all kinds of land.  Designing rules for all situations is, therefore, complicated.

Rules are designed to achieve at least two objectives:

1. To help players make their way around a golf course fairly and equitably; and
2. To protect the entire field in a tournament to make sure no one gets an unfair advantage.

So, onward to review more golf rules.  Perhaps I’ll find another new one that surprises 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 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 few perceptions about the speech:

• I didn’t watch it so my notions arise from reading media coverage.
• One piece of good news is that it’s over.
• The speech has become more “political theater” than an even-handed summary of the “state of the union.”

To prepare this blog, I could have decided to open one of the four departments I run, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

But, no, I decided just to write about the speech, President Joe Biden’s second of his presidency, now entering its third year.

So, was the speech good or bad?

Well, as usual in political theater, it depends on whom you ask. 

To many of Biden’s fellow Democrats, he did a good job of outlining the status of the country, including good things he and colleagues had done while in office.

To many Republicans, it was more of the same – more government, more government spending, more regulations.

Here are just a few perceptions from commentators.

FROM KARL ROVE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “President Joe Biden considers himself a blue-collar working stiff from middle America.  But another side of Scranton Joe was on display in his State of the Union address Tuesday night:  A high-rolling gambler.

“His speech was one gigantic political bet.  Team Biden knows that Americans feel both that the economy is in bad shape and that things have gotten worse for their families since he took office.  Workers’ wages rose less than prices last year, which probably explains these sour feelings.

“This — along with his malaprops and advanced age — have left only about a quarter of Americans confident in his ability to run the White House.

“It’s remarkable then that Tuesday Biden doubled down.  He’s betting big that the economy is already turning around.  He crowed loudly about its improving state, rewrote history where needed (‘two years ago, the economy was reeling’) and urged Americans to ‘finish the job.’”

Rove concluded, contending that “Biden was elected as a transitional figure and that voters still hope he is.”

FROM AARON BLAKE IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The last time Biden gave a major speech was back in September, when he delivered some tough words in a prime time address about Republican efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and said that ‘MAGA Republicans’ posed a threat to democracy.

“Tuesday’s speech was much more aspirational, albeit with some tense moments mixed in.  And, despite what could be an acrimonious 2024 campaign ahead, Biden clearly made the decision to preach extensively about bi-partisanship.

“He pitched his first two years in office as a surprising win for bi-partisanship, saying it proved the doubters wrong about the two sides’ ability to come together on issues like infrastructure and toxic burn pits.

“Biden’s dig at Trump-era deficits wasn’t the only indicator of the upcoming presidential race.  He also geared his speech extensively toward blue-collar voters.”

FROM EUGENE ROBINSON IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The call to action during President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday — ‘Let’s finish the job’ — would never be mistaken for soaring poetry.  But perhaps that’s the point.  In his speech, as throughout his first two years in office, Biden made a powerful case for governing in prose.

“The president took advantage of the national television audience the speech always draws to make the case that his worldview has been proved correct:  Even at a time of extreme polarization, bi-partisanship is not only possible but also necessary.  He said there is ‘no reason we can’t work together and find consensus in this Congress.’

“Biden came prepared for catcalls from far-right members of the new House majority.  I wondered at times whether I was watching a State of the Union address or a raucous session of Prime Minister’s Questions in the British House of Commons.  Rather than being rattled or angered by GOP outbursts, Biden seemed to relish them — at times, even to provoke them.”

In conclusion, I found the event to be a jeer-filled affair, no more so than when the flake, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, got just what she wanted as, in a loud voice, she called Biden a liar.

There were photos of her outburst, one she capitalized after the speech by using what she said to raise money from her supporters. 

The best photo:  The one, where in a white coat with a huge collar, Greene was shown with mouth wide open, yelling and screaming.  Standard behavior for her.

Worthy behavior on the occasion of a State of the Union address?  No.  But that’s what we now have in political theater. 

So, I am happy to join Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle who says it may now be time to scrap the “State of the Union” which has outlived its usefulness.

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 in this blog arose because of a quote in the Wall Street Journal under its “notable and quotable” section.

This:

“Increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.”

The quote came from Leonard Downie, an American journalist who was executive editor of The Washington Post from 1991 to 2008 and who worked in the Post newsroom for 44 years. 

It raises a question that has come up for writers and editors in the days since Donald Trump rose to power in this country.  And, it exists for me, a former daily newspaper reporter, though that stint was a long time ago.

And, as Downie put it below, it is a question that also deals with a variety of cultural trends in this country.

Here’s how I put the question:  Does journalistic objectivity make sense when you deal with a person (or allies of that person) who lie and make up stuff as a matter of course?  Do those who write about this stuff have an obligation to write the truth or, by contrast, continue to engage in what has been labeled ‘bothsideism.’?

Downie added this:

“Amid all the profound challenges and changes roiling the American news media today, newsrooms are debating whether traditional objectivity should still be the standard for news reporting.  Objectivity is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings, or prejudice.

“But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.  They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.

“They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change, and many other subjects.

“And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

To this, I would emphasize the difficulty of covering political figures – Trump is the best example – who lie as a matter of course.  So, as a reporter, do you cover the lies as if they are true?  I say no.

The risk, of course, is that, if journalists don’t try to practice objectivity, they become like gods – yes, that’s an overstatement – but they presume to decide what is truth and what is not.

So, based on my early days as a reporter, as well as on the rest of my career where I devoured newspapers intentionally:

• I have a history of believing that it is critical to cover both sides – or all sides – in writing a story for a newspaper.  How else to be fair to all sides in what could be a spirited dispute?  By taking a side, I did not want to presume to know how to resolve a pending dispute.
• At the same time, I was hesitant to include comments from one side when what that side said was lying or over-the-top rhetoric.  There is a difference between outlining your point of view and yelling or screaming. 
• In the Trump example above, it would be enough for me for a reporter to describe comments from someone like Trump as lies by citing the truth, not the Trump-fiction.

Don’t forget, I am a former lobbyist, so I don’t have to fall down on one side or the other of such contentious debates. 

I try to find what I call the smart middle.

Here, the smart middle is this: 

1. General assignment reporters should continue to try to cover both or all sides of contentious issues.  Report the issue, including having the courage to call out lies.
2. Editors and opinion writers should fall down on the side of what they believe to be the truth and assure that their opinions are labeled as such as they advocate for beliefs.

Sound good?

I think so.

And, it’s why I continue to read both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.  Both practice what I preach above.

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.

Like a dummy, I signed up the other day for a three-month seminar on golf rules.

Why?

A couple reasons:

• First, I like the subject, which I know is a strange affliction.

• Second, the seminar is being run by the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), not a national golf association, so the content will be easier to understand as local officials help all of us deal with an often-arcane subject.

The seminar will be offered on-line every Tuesday and Thursday from 5:30-7:30 p.m. each evening, starting on January 31 and running through March 9.

The “all” refers to about 40 from Oregon who have joined me to take the course – or perhaps, better put, I joined them.

Based on the first sessions, it appears that Brent Whitaker, a friend of mine who directs all OGA golf tournaments, will be the instructor.  That’s good because he knows many of us who have signed up for the seminar need a lot of help understanding the rules.

Further, one helpful feature of the course is that, on a weekly basis, in addition to the on-line class, there will be a “office hours” session.  That’s where a small group of those who have signed will have at least an hour of time with an OGA rules official to engage in an interactive session.

Based on the first such yesterday afternoon, it will be time well spent.

So, beyond the two reasons cited above, why do I do this?  Well, I want to gain more rules knowledge, if not rules certification, so I can add that to my goal to continue serving as a “starter “for OGA tournaments for junior or adult amateurs.

Being a starter is rewarding.

First, you are “around golf.” 

Second, at every tournament, you meet and greet the players on the 1^st or 10^th tees, welcome them, and review basic rules of the competition.  Plus, once all players have teed off, a starter usually gets to go home while rules officials must stay around for hours so all players can finish their round under rules supervision.

I hope my increased rules knowledge will come in handy as I continue to support golf in Oregon.

Let me add that golf rules are arcane, complicated, and difficult.  Look at it this way:  Rules have to be applied to all kinds of outdoor areas around the world.  Far different than drafting rules for a stadium or an indoor gymnasium.

Could the rules be written more simply?  I believe the answer is.

From a wordsmithing perspective, I’d love to take a crack at it.  But, I am too busy now attending another rules seminar.

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.

“Scotland is notably famous for its Open Rota venues — celebrated courses where you can experience links golf at its finest and walk in the shadow of history.

“These acclaimed courses each merit high ranking on any traveling golfer’s bucket list.  But there’s so much more to Scottish golf than the courses you see on television.”

That’s how a recent Links Magazine on-line article started.  And the description reminded me of my five trips to the “Home of Golf” where I played many courses located in small towns around the country, not just the most famous venues.

More from Links:

“There are over 500 golf courses in Scotland, a country about the size of South Carolina.  So, you’re never far from a visit-worthy course when you’re touring Caledonia.  And it’s easy to combine rounds at some of the more exalted courses with visits to lesser-known but equally enjoyable ones—courses where the emphasis is on fun rather than fame.”

That was exactly my experience in Scotland.

I could play the Old Course in St. Andrews on one day (that is, if I could get a tee time) and the play Brora the next day.

I loved playing the small Scottish courses in the small towns.  Each town has one or two courses.  The proprietors welcome you with open arms and often pair you up with local residents who love to play, even as they talk you around a course using their characteristic Scottish accents.

Then, at the end of the round, it’s time for a “wee dram,” which means whiskey and, while I don’t much like the drink, it does warm you up after a round in the often-cold Scot weather.

I chose “links-style” courses in Scotland rather than the parkland courses characteristic of courses in the United States.

What’s the difference?

The main one is that, on links-style courses, you play many shots close to the ground and the ground works its will on the golf ball.  I often played a 7-iron from 50 yards or from 150 yards.  There are few, if any, trees.  On parkland courses, the challenge is target golf, with a lot of trees as you aim at pins.

Both are fun types of golf, but very different.

The Links Magazine article went on to list several small-town golf courses in Scotland that are worth playing.

• Crail Golfing Society (Craighead Links)—Crail, Fife [I have played this course, which features knee-high fescue rough.]
• Gleneagles (Queen’s Course)—Auchterarder, Perthshire  [I have not played this course, which is listed as, perhaps, the toughest par 68 course in the world, but, of course, I have heard of the several Gleneagles Courses.]
• Gullane Golf Club (No. 2)—Gullane, East Lothian  [I have played this course.  Actually, there are three courses at Gullane, which lies close to Open-Rota Course Muirfield Links.]
• Kilspindie Golf Club—Aberlady, East Lothian  [I have played this course, which lies in the first small town my wife and I visited in Scotland, Aberlady.]
• Panmure Golf Club—Carnoustie, Angus  [This course lies almost adjacent to Open Rota venue, Carnoustie.  It’s worth playing, as is, of course, Carnoustie, which is as difficult as any course I have played in Scotland.]
• Prestwick St. Nicholas Golf Club—Prestwick, Ayrshire  [I have played this course.  At one time, it was part of the Open Rota, but these days it is not long enough to accommodate pro golfers.  It accommodated me just fine.]

That’s enough for now. 

Suffice to say that golf in Scotland is a pleasure.  You relive history every time you visit a course, even a small one in a small town.

Great golf.  Great country.

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.

“Earmarks” – the process by which Members of Congress gain federal funding for their home districts – is always an issue that sparks debates on both sides.

• Those who hate earmarks say all they do is inflate federal spending.
• Those who like earmarks say they provide funding for important local projects.

All of this arose again in a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline:  “Steny Hoyer is part of the problem in Congress.”

Well, who is Steny Hoyer anyway? 

Well, he is – or, perhaps better, “was” — a major leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.  As a Democrat, he is now out of leadership in a body controlled by Republicans, but he was a major aide and confidante of long-time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Here is how the letter to the editor started:

“The January 3 Metro article gave high praise to Representative Steny H. Hoyer for his ability to obtain ‘dividends to Maryland.’  Clearly, Hoyer’s track record of looting the national treasury to benefit his constituents is considered a great achievement.

“In fact, Hoyer is a perfect example of congressional dysfunction.  As a career politician, with more than 40 years in Congress, he continues to be re-elected by ‘bringing home the bacon’ to his constituents.  Other members of Congress support his efforts to loot the national treasury for the simple reason of reciprocity.

“If they support him, he will support them in their efforts to send their constituents some of the public largesse.  This process of reciprocal unrestrained spending has resulted in a national debt exceeding $31 trillion and in the maintenance of a permanent political class in the legislative branch of the federal government.”

Well, as strong as those words are, there is another side to the story.  This.

If a senator or representative works well and above-board in Congress, he or she can become advocates for important, not to mention reasonable, federal investments in their home communities. 

Money to fund new roads.  Money to fund new education services.  Money for special health care programs.  Etc.

All are the types of local investments that can make sense and also can be a testament to a Member of Congress’ ability to work for those they represent back home.

So, as I said, the argument cuts both ways.

Further, I have been involved directly in earmarks in the past.

Back when I worked in Washington, D.C. for a Member of Congress from Oregon, we worked hard to secure investments for our home district.  All those potential investments were analyzed on their merits, not just from a “bring home the bacon” perspective, although, frankly, that was important, too.

Then, in the public relations and lobbying firm in Oregon from which I retired in 2018, our staff in Washington, D.C. worked hard to secure local investments for clients throughout the states of Oregon and Washington.  Again, investments that rested on their merits.

Of course, on the anti-side, there is the old story about a U.S. senator from Virginia, Robert Byrd, who made a career of bringing home federal money, so much so that one time the money built a “bridge to nowhere.”

So, on earmarks, make up your own mind.

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.

In what I wrote earlier this week, I should have given the new governor credit for this:

• In her “Recommended Budget for 2023-25,” she did not just propose a bunch of numbers.

• Rather, she proposed “policy priorities” and then summarized how to fund them.

That doesn’t mean her recommendations will emerge unscathed in the Oregon Legislature.  It just means that, based on her work, it is at least possible that lawmakers also will focus on policy, not just numbers.

Such policies as affordable housing.  Dealing with homelessness.  What “quality education” means.  Improving health care and human services programs.  Etc.

That’s what supposed to happen with a “Governor’s Recommended Budget.”  It did this time.

We’ll see how Kotek’s proposals fare in the next five months at the Capitol.  Usually, about 80 per cent of what a governor recommends survives and she also has the benefit of a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

So, with this post, I correct my omission.

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.

Anyone who knows me knows that I do not believe LIV Golf is good for the game we love.

Better, I say, for pro golfers to work to improve the PGA Tour.  Better for golfers and fans like me to stick with golf competitions, not exhibitions.

So it was that I read an announcement by LIV Golf that it – finally – had secured a place for its exhibitions to be shown on TV, the CW, which I had barely heard of before the announcement.

Did the announcement matter?  No.

To hear LIV Golf blunderbuss Greg Norman tell it, the answer was yes.  But, after all he has said and done to damage pro golf over the years, not just with his new gig at LIV, but well before that, it is hard for me to give credibility to anything Norman says.

Instead, these two comments.

FROM COLUMNIST EAMON LYNCH IN GOLFWEEK:  “There are many possible explanations for why LIV has failed to gain traction with fans — the format, the frat brats in the lineup, the insignificance of the competition, the garish theatrics, the source of the funding.

“Perhaps ease of access to tournament broadcasts was another factor, but it requires a grandiose optimism to believe that The CW will sustain better results than YouTube’s 2.6 billion active users.

“For all the spin put forth by Norman and his team, LIV has simply found a lesser storefront for the very same product that was ignored when given the largest platform possible.  What was announced this week is less a broadcast deal than a distress sale, which is not to imply that anyone was willing to pay for it.”

FROM THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB:  It’s safe to say the National Press Club is not happy with Nexstar’s decision to partner with LIV Golf.  [Nexstar is the parent of the CW.]

Founded in 1908, the National Press Club is the world’s leading professional organization for journalists.  The Club has 3,000 members representing nearly every major news organization and is a leading voice for press freedom in the U.S. and worldwide.

Its president Jen Judson released a statement regarding LIV Golf’s multi-year TV deal to air its tournaments on the CW Network, which Nexstar Media Group owns.

The statement speaks for itself.

“We are deeply disappointed that a company that makes money from news like Nexstar would agree to participate in such a shameful PR stunt as LIV Golf, which is fundamentally designed to rehabilitate the Saudi reputation, tarnished irreparably by the state-ordered gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018.

“We are left to wonder what if anything Nexstar stands for.  You cannot have a brand in news and act this way.  Saudi Arabia murdered a Washington Post journalist and cut him up with a bone saw.

“Riyadh wants to use golf to get Americans to forget about murder.  We must not let them get away with it.  We call on Nexstar employees — many of whom are journalists — to demand management explain why they have partnered with the murderers of a journalist.

“We urge Nexstar to do the right thing and cancel their bloody golf show.  And if they don’t drop the program here is what we can do:  Don’t watch it; and write each sponsor asking them not to sponsor.”

The National Press Club position is another indication that LIV is not worthy of TV coverage, or, for that matter, for any of us who love real professional golf to watch it.

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.

“Governor Tina Kotek pitches big spending on housing and behavioral health, even amid economic uncertainty.”

That was headline that ran in the Oregonian newspaper this week as the new Oregon governor, Tina Kotek, conveyed information on one of her major, early actions in office – proposing a “Governor’s Recommended Budget for 2023-25.”

It is a required action.  Once they take office in early January, new governors, by law, are given until February 1 to announce a recommended budget for the biennium.  That set of recommendations then goes to the Legislature.

As a state lobbyist in Oregon for more years than I care to count, release of governor’s budget was always a development I anticipated with a mix of dread and excitement.  Why?  Because what governors recommend sets the tone for the only legislative action required in each long session in Salem – approval of a budget that balances expenditures with revenue.

Dread?  Perhaps governors would ignore my clients’ priorities.  Excitement?  It was a critical step in aligning state government for another two years, including, perhaps, reflecting my clients’ priorities.

In what I wrote above, note that I wrote “balanced.”  It is what Oregon law requires, far different than the federal budget where expenditures always exceed revenue, sometimes, but not always, with good reason.

Did Kotek’s first recommended budget meet the balanced budget target?

Well, deciphering that is a tall task, just as it is a tall task to read the governor’s budget and understand what it does and does not do – and what it costs to do what the governor wants to do.  It is a thick document – much like, to illustrate my advanced age, the size of an old phone book.

Still, I give Kotek credit for laying out her case for aggressive government action on her priorities, the chief of one which appears to be dealing with homelessness.  That’s what governors should do – lay down markers for what they want to achieve, then work with the Legislature to find middle ground.

I hope Kotek does this.  As a governor who came out of the Legislature, she should understand the business of dealing with legislators, not trying to run roughshod over them.  Time will tell how she does in this regard.

From the Oregonian newspaper, here are a few highlights of the Kotek budget proposal:

• Kotek wants to tap Oregon’s savings accounts to pay for expanded initiatives to tackle the state’s housing shortage, homelessness crisis, behavioral health care needs and poor education outcomes.
• Kotek wants the state to issue $770 million in debt to help build affordable homes for renters and new homeowners.
• Kotek wants to increase salaries at least for health care workers, though no doubt she eventually will go on record for salary increases for all workers at the collective bargaining table.
• Kotek wants lawmakers to approve $9.9 billion in core funding for Oregon K-12 schools, more than the $9.5 billion that state budget analysts calculated Oregon would need to hold steady at current service levels, but less than the $10.3 billion that schools advocate, including school boards and the statewide teachers union, say is necessary to prevent cuts.  [A reminder:  School lobbyists always ask for more money than they need because better that, they say, that settling low early.]

Does what Kotek has recommended meet the text of balancing revenue and expenses?  Perhaps.  But barely.

That’s because Kotek’s ambitious proposals come as state economists have said it is more than likely that Oregon will enter a mild recession this year – a recession that will reduce income tax revenue, thus making it difficult to find the money Kotek is advocating for all her priorities.

Any governor’s budget proposes trade-offs and Kotek’s first one is no exception.  For one thing, she is not recommending bonding to build new state university buildings, which has been a hallmark of most recent governor’s budgets.   Instead, she wants to focus state bonding on affordable housing. 

No doubt state universities are in the process of coming unglued.

So, are Republicans who are in the minority in both the Oregon House and Senate, a status which means they won’t usually agree with the Democrat in the state’s top political office.

Here’s what House Republicans said:  “The caucus is optimistic the governor’s budget does not call for tax increases, but we remain concerned Kotek and her agencies will raise fees on hardworking Oregonians.”

They also expressed relief that Kotek did not propose diverting Oregon’s unique “kicker” tax rebate in order to boost government spending, and they reiterated their desire for lawmakers to issue the kicker as a check to taxpayers this year instead of the usual method of returning it as a credit when people file their taxes in 2024.

“We are committed to returning these hard-earned dollars back to Oregon taxpayers,” Republicans said.

Not surprisingly, the Oregon Taxpayers’ Association has been more strident in raising questions about Kotek’s proposals.  According to an on-line publication, the Oregon Catalyst, there are more than a few questions about what Kotek is recommending.  Among them:

• Is Kotek’s plan is to spend up to $50 million paying people’s rents just a response to the rent control bill Kotek supported last session?
• How does Kotek’s budget for more affordable housing jibe with government currently blocking available land for more housing?
• If Kotek believes children have a right to education “that will set them up for a lifetime of opportunity,” why does she turn her back on charter schools?

So, in all of this, one traditional summary is this:  The governor proposes and the Legislature disposes.

What’s ahead are six months of back and forth as legislators “dispose” of what the governor has recommended and, in the end, the budget must be in balance, which means all those involved will have to engage in comprise, which means:  Getting a little and giving a little.

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.

To demonstrate my management agility, I am opening the Department of Pet Peeves today hard on the heels of opening the Department of Inquiring Minds earlier this week.

These are two departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.  The others are the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

See, I am nothing if not a management guru.

Today, in the Department of Pet Peeves, I choose to limit myself to one peeve.

HOW TO RUIN A GOOD PROFESSIONAL GOLF TOURNAMENT:  Pro golfers return this week to one of the great courses in America – the Pebble Beach Golf Links in California.

Tough to beat it as a location for golf, with its vistas and solid tournament history.

However, CBS, which televises the tournament, makes a huge mistake, which earns it a place in my list of peeves.  This:

Every year, CBS gives a prominent place to the antics of someone who calls himself a comedian – actor Bill Murray.

His act, always stale to me, has become especially stale lately as he prances around the golf course pretending to play the game we love.  But, he spends most of his time, in addition to prancing, making fun of spectators as he encounters them along the rope line.

CBS could do me and other real golf fans a huge favor:  Avoid giving any airtime to Murray.  He was not funny as he acted in such films as Caddyshack, nor is he funny today.

Okay, given the tournament format, a pro-am, I don’t mind airtime for such celebrities as Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen.  But, Murray?  No.

The focus should be on golf.  Not stupid, stale antics.