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 says it all.

Donald Trump is now under at least four indictments for criminal conduct and more could be coming.

Still, he wants to be president.  And, for me, there is little question but that he should be prevented from running for the office.

What could happen is that Americans could vote for and perhaps even elect a felon to the nation’s highest political office.

If it happens, what would that say about our values?  Not much.

As indictments keep coming, Trump turns them all into fundraising opportunities, though recent statistics show that he has spent a lot of what he has raised on defending himself in court, not on campaigning for president.

For him, the two – fending off indictments and campaigning – are one and the same.

Washington Post associate editor Ruth Marcus had it right when she wrote in the Post under the headline I borrowed for this blog.  Here is how she started her recent column:

“United States of America v. Donald J. Trump is the most important indictment in the nation’s history.

“And the caption of the case says it all.  Most federal prosecutions have the government defending the interests of society writ large — against drug trafficking, or corporate fraud, or gun crimes.  This prosecution is different.  The United States is defending itself, recoiling against an effort to undo the democracy that Trump swore an oath to protect.

“’The indictment tells the story in clear, unsparing terms. ‘The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election,’ it states at the start, 45 pages that unspool a story that is at once familiar and newly shocking.  ‘Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power.’”

I continue to be troubled about how this narcissist continues to believe he should be president…again.  I suspect one reason is that, if he wins, he would pardon himself and many of his allies who helped him try to overturn the country on January 6.

More from Marcus:

“The former president now stands accused — not by political opponents, not by opinion columnists, but by a duly constituted grand jury that has heard the evidence against him.  As the indictment spells out, Trump tried to commit a crime against democracy.  The country and its voters are his intended victims.

“Trump’s lawyers will almost certainly mount challenges to the legal sufficiency of these claims, but these charges do not have the air of a prosecutorial stretch.  Special counsel Jack Smith, for instance, held off, as expected, from charging Trump with seditious conspiracy, which would have required evidence that he intended the violent overthrow of the government.”

Regarding a charge of sedition, I was surprised that, at least for the moment, Trump escaped such a charge.

What is sedition anyway?

Well, the definition is simple and straightforward, this:

“Incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government; any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.”

This is exactly what Trump did and continues to do.  He should have faced such a charge, as have some of his sycophants.

I suspect he escaped because such a charge would have roiled the country anew and, though prosecutors disavow including political perspectives in their decisions, they may have in this case. 

This conclusion from Marcus:

“Speaking of the voters, can we dispense with the idea that the proper and sufficient punishment for Trump’s behavior should be at their hands, at the ballot box in November 2024, if it comes to that?

“Where, exactly, was that deep respect for the will of the voters when Trump, as the indictment sets out, was conspiring to prevent their will from being respected when it came to the 2020 results?

“As to supposed (but unproven) double standards, how could it be fair to have more than a thousand of those whose behavior Trump incited face prosecution and let the individual behind it all go uncharged?

“If Trump’s behavior is allowed to stand, if it is not called out for the crime that it appears to be, the message to future presidents seeking to retain power at all costs would be:  The coast is clear.  Do what you need to remain in office.

“Prosecuting Trump on these charges is a grave, even perilous, step. Condoning his behavior by ignoring it would be far worse.”

Agreed.