Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 I write this, the Oregon Golf Association’s (OGA) final tournament of the season for golfers between 8 and 18 has just concluded in Salem, Oregon.

It was held at “my” home course, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, which, to its credit, agreed to host the event for the fourth year in a row.

Why?

In a phrase, “to support the future of golf!”

I say that as a 75-year-old golfer who is past his prime, if he had ever had a prime in the first place.

So, it’s good to see young players take up the game.

Everything went off without a hitch yesterday at Illahe.

That included the work of eight Illahe members who agreed to volunteer as “walking scorers” for the youngest players, those 8-9 and 10-11 years-of-age.  They play 9 holes as they to learn the game, whether they go on to play in high school or college or just love fold for rest of their lives.

One focus is to help players learn how to keep score in the only sport where players keep their own score.  Tournament scorecards are used and players serve as a “marker” for another player in their group, plus they record their own score.

Then, after each hole, they confirm the score with the walking scorer.  And, at the scoring table at the end of their 9-hole round, they sign the scorecard – the same process that occurs in tournaments for older players – as soon as they confirm that all 9 hole-by-hole scores are correct.

A good process, which in the case yesterday, relies on the good work of eight walking scorer volunteers.

When all is said and done, the main benefit of yesterday’s experience:  Young players represent the future of the game of golf and it is worth investing in their continued success.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

On this Sunday, normally a “day of rest,” I cannot help myself but to write more about Donald Trump. 

He is such a buffoon – other words also may apply – that it is not possible for me to ignore him on this or any other day.

As I reported in advance of the presidential debate, I said I was not going to watch it, preferring to review quality newspaper reports afterwards.

So, based on reporting in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, I thought Kamala Harris scored a huge victory.  One analyst called it a “rout.”

Of course, Donald Trump thought otherwise because, as a narcissist, he can’t tolerate the thought of losing.

I can – and I hope losing for him relates, not just to the debate, but also to the coming election.

A debate win for Harris won’t mean that it, alone, will dictate the outcome, but it was a solid next step toward victory.

Even as I convey these notions, I also was struck by what Atlantic Magazine columnist, Tom Nichols, wrote recently

Here is how he started his column:

“I find it exhausting to have to point out that Donald Trump has — yet again — threatened to engage in violent and dictatorial behavior, and that — yet again — the collective reaction by some in America seems to be a numb acceptance that this is just who Trump is.

“…Trump’s goal is to exhaust people who care about democracy:  That’s why he regularly inundates the nation with his rancid word salads.  His screeds are aimed at making us all so tired that when he actually attempts to carry out these schemes, we’ll hardly have the energy to notice. 

“Oh, he’s ordering Homeland Security to arrest people in unconstitutional dragnets? Yeah, I’ve been hearing stuff about that for a long time.”

Here is part of what Nichols reports that Trump posted at his personal “rantatorium,” Truth Social:

“CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election.

“It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again.”

First, I avoid mentioning the inappropriate capitalization, as well as the sorry syntax.

But, as Nichols points out, “This post is the 45th president of the United States putting in writing that he must win, and that after he wins, he will mobilize the machinery of government against his opponents because there was clearly fraud anyway.

“I will just note that I refuse to believe that Trump really coughed up a word like skulduggery on his own.  Spelling it incorrectly does point to him, but the likelihood that someone else is writing these posts is a reminder that Trump is surrounded by people who have no objections to his plans and will willingly carry them out.

“Some of this was drowned out by Trump’s other deranged statements last week. Just before he issued his Stalinist threats, he dropped a piece of pure weapons-grade nuttery about kids getting gender-changing surgery during a normal school day in America.

“;Can you imagine you’re a parent,’ he said at a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday, ‘and your son leaves the house and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much. Go have a good day in school’ and your son comes back with a brutal operation.  Can you even imagine this?  What the hell is wrong with our country?”

Nichols says “you cannot imagine it because it’s never happened.  Any parent knows that most schools completely plotz if they even have to give a kid some ibuprofen, but on Planet Trump, school nurses can apparently do surgery in the office.

“At the same rally, Trump threatened to round up undocumented immigrants en masse and admitted it would be ‘bloody story.’

“To recap:  In one day, Trump threatened the use of mass government violence inside the United States, asserted that kids are getting secret medical procedures at schools, and promised to lock up his political opponents.”

Now, all of this does not even take into account the incredibly – not to mention dishonest – claim by Trump during the debate the immigrants in Ohio are “eating cats and dogs.”

Enough.

Just send Trump to the trash bin where he belongs and elect Harris.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

Lock ‘em up vs. education.

That’s one of the political realities behind what I heard for the first time a few days ago in a post from KGW-TV.

Here’s the headline.

The director of the Oregon Department of Corrections is asking the Legislature to fund a study of a building new major state, maximum security prison.

The current prison, called “The Big House” lies in Salem, Oregon and, to put a point on it, it is very told.

So, the director of the state agency, Mike Reese, a former City of Portland police chief as well as a former Multnomah County sheriff, is calling for a new state prison.  At least a study he wants a full-fledged study of the possibility of building one.

Here is what he told KGW in a story the TV station carried under this headline:  “Inside the Oregon Department of Corrections’ push to build a new state penitentiary.”

“DOC Director Reese says the state prison is aging and ‘oppressive.’

“So, he and leaders at the Oregon Department of Corrections are pushing for a new state prison, asking lawmakers to add it to the top of their priority list and study how much it would cost to repair or replace the maximum-security facility in Salem.”

It the study moves forward, it might cost much.  But, building a new prison.  It would cost millions and take years to construct.

And the cost would re-shape the state’s budget planning for its criminal justice system.

Reese contends the Penitentiary is deteriorating and it no longer makes sense to bankroll repairs.

“We do that work (meaning prison repairs) and then what breaks next?”
he told KGW.   “This institution has a vibe to it that makes it challenging to talk about rehabilitation and restoration of people’s humanity and dignity.”

The risk of Reese’s advocacy?

EVERY dollar in state prisons is a “general fund tax dollar,” so funding a new prison inevitably will take money from other general fund priorities, such as K-12 schools, social services, and higher education.

I’ll go back to allocations in 2023.

A total of $27.86 billion was in the “general fund,” which includes all the taxes individuals and companies pay the state each year.  “Lottery funds “– $1.5 billion – comes from state-sanctioned gambling.  Almost $40.44 billion aroses from federal funding, which includes money sent to Oregon for programs such as Medicaid, education, and housing.

The biggest chunk of the 2021-23 budget — $51.4 billion – came from so-called “other funds,” which includes money state agencies gather by charging for services or licensing — for example, the fee that doctors pay to maintain a medical license, or the fee that many people pay to get a driver’s license.

Back many years ago when I worked in the Oregon Department of Human Resources, the agency included the Corrections Division.  Then, there were three state prisons – the “big house,” the Correctional Institution out on Highway 22 a bit east of Salem, and the Women’s Prison, a small facility located near the big house.

In 1994, Oregonians approved a measure at the ballot by a large margin – 66 per cent.  It established sentencing guidelines which translated into a “lock ‘em up” strategy.

It clearly was politically popular, so the prison building boom started.

Today, there are 14 state prisons, all funded by “general fund dollars.”  No federal money.  No money from inmates.

The Reese-request, however warranted it may be given the age of the big house, will continue making it tough to balance all state general fund needs.

Which means I would not want to sit in positions occupied by the Oregon House and Senate co-chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee (which in Oregon, refers to the budget, not taxes.)    

There are no easy decisions ahead.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 find myself wondering every day about how otherwise reasonable Americans can fall for – and even wallow in — the depths of Donald Trump’s tripe.

This includes some of my good friends.

Of course, it’s a subject – politics these days – that I often avoid like the plague with many of my friends…not all, but many.  It’s not worth it to risk friendships.

Still, I wonder, why Trump.

New York Times writer David French helped me by trying to answer the question in a column the other day that appeared under this headline: 

“MAGA Will Fall for Anything.”

Here are excerpts of what he wrote:

“It was the strangest thing I’ve ever seen during a presidential debate, and I’m exactly the kind of nerd who has watched every general election debate since I was 11 years old.

“A few minutes into the contest, Kamala Harris interrupted her remarks to mock Donald Trump’s rallies.  She invited viewers to attend one, made fun of Trump’s meandering and self-absorbed speeches and then said, ‘People start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.’

“She was baiting him, and he fell for it.  He responded with a barrage of conspiracy theories and misinformation that culminated in a bizarre rant about immigrants and pets in Ohio.  ‘In Springfield,’ Trump said, ‘They’re eating the dogs.  The people that came in, they’re eating the cats.  They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.’”

In that moment, French wrote, Trump amplified a strange claim that had spread through the on-line right over the days before.  

“It’s hard to trace the origin of a rumor, he said, “but it blew up with a September 6 post from a prominent right-wing account called End Wokeness, which claimed that ‘Springfield is a small town in Ohio.  Four years ago, they had 60k residents.  Under Harris and Biden, 20,000 Haitian immigrants were shipped to the town.  Now ducks and pets are disappearing.’”

Stupid stuff.  Untrue.  Right wing fables from those who hate immigrants.

Then, French launches into the “why.”

“But I’m actually less interested in debunking each individual hoax than in answering some questions.  Why is MAGA still so gullible?  Why didn’t Republicans learn anything from 2020, when they fell for some of the strangest conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard about?

“In the days after January 6, 2021, I argued that years of extreme right-wing rhetoric had made millions of ordinary voters vulnerable to the wildest of ideas.  If you watch right-wing television — or if you listen to right-wing radio — you will hear the most vicious insults against Democrats and the media over and over.  

“It’s a constant drumbeat of inflammatory rhetoric: ‘They’ hate America.  ‘They’ hate Christians.  ‘They’ will destroy our country.

“And few populations have been more thoroughly demonized during the age of Trump than immigrants.  From the opening speech of his first campaign (when he said immigrants are ‘bringing drugs.  They’re bringing crime.  They’re rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people’), Trump has been painting a lurid and terrifying picture of the immigrant threat.

“Hear this long enough, and it seeps into your bones.  You begin to develop a level of antipathy and distrust so profound that you are capable of believing just about anything about your opponents.  After all, if Democrats are ‘demoncrats,’ what won’t they do to attain power?  

“If the immigrant community is full of rapists and drug dealers, how hard is it to imagine that they might kill and eat cats and dogs, never mind ducks?”

Another way of putting it, French adds, “is that animosity fuels gullibility. If you like or respect someone, you’re immediately skeptical of negative claims, and the more outlandish the claim, the more skeptical you’ll be.  But if you loathe a person or a population, in a perverse way you become more receptive to the worst stories.  After all, they’re the ones that vindicate your hatred the most.

“The problem, then, isn’t just with right-wing villainization, it’s with who the right elevates as its champions.  Every movement elevates heroes and leaders, but in the age of Trump, the right’s heroes are created almost entirely through pugilism and confrontation, not through inspiration or elevation.

“It’s easy to roll your eyes at the idea that politics should be elevated (or when people start talking about elevation and inspiration), but this is the consequence when inspiration isn’t even an option.  The first rule of the right is simple:  You must fight.  In their minds, McCain didn’t fight, so he lost.  Romney didn’t fight, so he lost.  Trump fought, so he won.”

There, the guts of why certain people support Trump.  Two main factors:

• Those who support Trump hate those who don’t.  As French wrote, “their animosity fuels gullibility.”

• Those who support Trump would rather fight than deal with the realities of a real, imperfect world.

This doesn’t explain everything, but it comes close.

Then, in conclusion, I add two quotes, one from Charles Sykes in the Atlantic and another from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

Sykes writes, “Trump must be aware on some level that, on debate night, tens of millions of voters watched a bitter, confused, and diminished elderly man fall apart in front of their eyes.

“At his rallies, Trump can get away with his signature lies and tantrums of grievance — and with not saying much at all about actual policy plans.  In his softball interviews with fawning right-wing hosts, he can ramble and lie without fear of being challenged.

“At the presidential debate, though, it didn’t work.  So, he has decided to blame everybody but himself.”

Milbank writes, “Sixty-seven million viewers saw an out-of-control Trump claim he won the 2020 election, complain that those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, were “treated so badly,” argue about his crowd size, assert that he had read that Harris “was not Black” and that Biden “hates her,” admit that he still only has “concepts of a plan” on health care, make odd statements such as “I got involved with the Taliban” and “she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” and utter this ludicrous slander about Haitian migrants: “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

My fond wish is that the MAGA crowd would see Trump for what he really is, which is a dangerous buffoon, if not worse, eager to advance himself over America.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 arises on the basis of comments in three newspaper columns after the debate, one Kamala Harris won and Donald Trump lost.

Tell Trump that he lost and he’ll fume again as he did when Harris laid various traps for him in the debate and he bit every time.

The consensus is that she won in a rout.

I’ll devote my blog today to reprinting a column from Frank Bruni, who was on staff at the New York Times for 25 years and now contributes columns on a frequent basis.  He is an excellent writer who pillories Trump, but also suggests where Harris needs to improve.

Quotes from the three columns appear below, one from Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post, one from Frank Bruni in the New York Times, and one from Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal.

*********

FROM FRANK BRUNI:  In Kamala Harris’s big general-election debate four years ago, she faced off against an opponent with a fly on his head.

In her immeasurably bigger debate on Tuesday night, she confronted an opponent with bats inside his.

And out they came, flapping and screeching, when he brought up cats and dogs.

He was talking about what he couldn’t stop talking about — the millions of migrants who, he insisted, were depraved criminals being dumped on us by cackling foreign leaders — and in his indiscriminate zest to describe an American hellscape, he repeated debunked stories that in Springfield, Ohio, these desperate newcomers were noshing on Fido and Whiskers.

“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in — they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” he sputtered, red-faced. Harris didn’t even have to correct him, because David Muir, one of the two ABC News anchors moderating the debate, got there first and did it for her.

Some dark fantasies need immediate dispelling.  And some deranged fantasists need to be tugged back into reality before they wander so far from it that there’s no returning.

Trump made a raving, rambling fool of himself on Tuesday night, and while Harris by no means did everything right, she had the good sense to alternately call him out on that and simply watch him unravel.  She had the discipline to shake her head sadly and smile dismissively when he made laughably false accusations against her.  She had the skill — here, on full display, was the prosecutor in her — to needle him into maximal seething.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN:  Vice President Kamala Harris demonstrated in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, in case any rational person had doubts, that she is the only decent, prepared and fit candidate in the presidential race.  In both her answers and demeanor, she demonstrated the unmistakable contrast between a mature, responsible adult and someone who resembles the mean, crazy relative no one wants to sit next to at the holiday table.

When ABC News’s debate moderators, Linsey Davis and David Muir, opened the proceedings, she came out swinging, rattling off a list of her domestic proposals.  She plainly had her ducks in a row, attacking Donald Trump for the largest trade deficit in history, for selling microchips to China and even for praising Chinese President Xi Jinping for his handling of the coronavirus.

Trump was clearly rattled, resorting to lies about everything from his economic record to abortion.

Throughout, Harris remained calm and collected, not bothering to rebut every lie, and instead hitting Trump on the main issues — his favoritism toward the rich, his contempt for democracy and his weakness on national security.

FROM KARL ROVE:  Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.

Harris was often on offense, leaving Trump visibly rattled as she launched rocket after rocket at him.  A New York Times analysis found she spent 46 per dent of her time on the attack while Trump devoted 29 per cent of his time to going after her. Debates aren’t won on defense.

Harris pressed Trump on the economy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, healthcare, the January 6 attack and especially abortion, leaving him flustered and often incoherent.  In return, he criticized her on border security, climate change and the Israel-Hamas war.

Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool.  She did.  She went after him on his multiple indictments.  She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth.  She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.

As is frequently the case with Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him.  He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did.  Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Trump got furious.

MY CONCLUSION:  These commentators have a point.  Harris won the debate.

But the prevailing question is whether, even if true, will it matter?

It is hard to tell whether the debate win will motivate undecided voters to Harris’ way.  Perhaps yes, as indicated by various letters to the editor published since the debate.

But, Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris could mean much more than any debate result. 

For one thing, it was reported that, after Swift’s endorsement, “likes”on her feed rose by around two millions.  Plus, news of the endorsement drove almost 340,000 visitors to Vote.gov, a government website that directs users to state-specific voting information. 

That came on top of Swift’s please-register-to-vote missive on her website in 2023 that produced 1,226 per cent traffic boost in the hour after the post ran.

Any political figure, Harris included, would relish such results.  No doubt she is today.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 arises on the basis of comments in three newspaper columns after the debate, one Kamala Harris won and Donald Trump lost.

Tell Trump that he lost and he’ll fume again as he did when Harris laid various traps for him in the debate and he bit every time.

The consensus is that she won in a rout.

I’ll devote my blog today to reprinting a column from Frank Bruni, who was on staff at the New York Times for 25 years and now contributes columns on a frequent basis.  He is an excellent writer who pillories Trump, but also suggests where Harris needs to improve.

Quotes from the three columns appear below, one from Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post, one from Frank Bruni in the New York Times, and one from Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal.

*********

FROM FRANK BRUNI:  In Kamala Harris’s big general-election debate four years ago, she faced off against an opponent with a fly on his head.

In her immeasurably bigger debate on Tuesday night, she confronted an opponent with bats inside his.

And out they came, flapping and screeching, when he brought up cats and dogs.

He was talking about what he couldn’t stop talking about — the millions of migrants who, he insisted, were depraved criminals being dumped on us by cackling foreign leaders — and in his indiscriminate zest to describe an American hellscape, he repeated debunked stories that in Springfield, Ohio, these desperate newcomers were noshing on Fido and Whiskers.

“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in — they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” he sputtered, red-faced. Harris didn’t even have to correct him, because David Muir, one of the two ABC News anchors moderating the debate, got there first and did it for her.

Some dark fantasies need immediate dispelling.  And some deranged fantasists need to be tugged back into reality before they wander so far from it that there’s no returning.

Trump made a raving, rambling fool of himself on Tuesday night, and while Harris by no means did everything right, she had the good sense to alternately call him out on that and simply watch him unravel.  She had the discipline to shake her head sadly and smile dismissively when he made laughably false accusations against her.  She had the skill — here, on full display, was the prosecutor in her — to needle him into maximal seething.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN:  Vice President Kamala Harris demonstrated in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, in case any rational person had doubts, that she is the only decent, prepared and fit candidate in the presidential race.  In both her answers and demeanor, she demonstrated the unmistakable contrast between a mature, responsible adult and someone who resembles the mean, crazy relative no one wants to sit next to at the holiday table.

When ABC News’s debate moderators, Linsey Davis and David Muir, opened the proceedings, she came out swinging, rattling off a list of her domestic proposals.  She plainly had her ducks in a row, attacking Donald Trump for the largest trade deficit in history, for selling microchips to China and even for praising Chinese President Xi Jinping for his handling of the coronavirus.

Trump was clearly rattled, resorting to lies about everything from his economic record to abortion.

Throughout, Harris remained calm and collected, not bothering to rebut every lie, and instead hitting Trump on the main issues — his favoritism toward the rich, his contempt for democracy and his weakness on national security.

FROM KARL ROVE:  Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.

Harris was often on offense, leaving Trump visibly rattled as she launched rocket after rocket at him.  A New York Times analysis found she spent 46 per dent of her time on the attack while Trump devoted 29 per cent of his time to going after her. Debates aren’t won on defense.

Harris pressed Trump on the economy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, healthcare, the January 6 attack and especially abortion, leaving him flustered and often incoherent.  In return, he criticized her on border security, climate change and the Israel-Hamas war.

Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool.  She did.  She went after him on his multiple indictments.  She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth.  She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.

As is frequently the case with Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him.  He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did.  Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Trump got furious.

MY CONCLUSION:  These commentators have a point.  Harris won the debate.

But the prevailing question is whether, even if true, will it matter?

It is hard to tell whether the debate win will motivate undecided voters to Harris’ way.  Perhaps yes, as indicated by various letters to the editor published since the debate.

But, Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris could mean much more than any debate result. 

For one thing, it was reported that, after Swift’s endorsement, “likes”on her feed rose by around two millions.  Plus, news of the endorsement drove almost 340,000 visitors to Vote.gov, a government website that directs users to state-specific voting information. 

That came on top of Swift’s please-register-to-vote missive on her website in 2023 that produced 1,226 per cent traffic boost in the hour after the post ran.

Any political figure, Harris included, would relish such results.  No doubt she is today.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 friend of mine on the golf course driving range yesterday asked me who I was going to vote for for president.

Specifically, he asked, “Trump or that lady?”

I was smart enough not to answer because I try to avoid at all costs talking about politics on the golf course, including such a question as the one above, with the absolutely offensive phrase, “that lady.”

Smart, right?

I report this after reading stories this morning from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times about last night’s presidential debate.

Not watching such “political events” allows me to read the newspapers listed above and get a nuanced perspective on, in this case, the debate.  Perspectives from the right, the left, and the middle enable this nuance.

Reading all three newspapers this morning provided these over-arching perspectives:

• Kamala Harris performed well, showing the ability to get under Donald Trump’s skin and prompt him to go off message.  Which, of course, is what he does all the time, but she helped him appear stupid and disjointed, especially when talking the size of crowds at his rallies.

• Trump reverted to normal themes, casting himself as ever the victim.  He even referred to immigrants eating cats and dogs when they came to America.  Yes, cats and dogs, a social media notation rejected by all sorts of responsible public officials, yet Trump and Trump #2, vice president candidate J.D. Vance still use it.

[On this point and others, ABC News moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis received plaudits for at-the-time fact checking, including when Muir said public officials had debunked Trump’s claims about immigrants eating cats and dogs.]

• The consensus of news media commentators is that Harris won the debate, but they also say it may not matter because both debaters essentially appealed to their political bases without demonstrating too much ability to gather the “undecideds.”  Not surprising in such a convoluted forum as this.

However, one development after the debate could prove to be important.  No less a vaunted public figure than Taylor Swift immediately came out endorsing Harris.  She did so in convincing fashion.  And her endorsement could help to cement the “women’s vote” for Harris, in this case, especially younger women who are following Swift.

I also talked last night with another friend of mine who, like me, a veteran of politics in Oregon, who said he was not watching the debate.

Why?

He responded:  “All I would see is Trump being Trump and I have had enough of that.”

Me, too.

I hope Harris can now pivot from the debate to continue reaching out to Americans who are ready to send Trump where he belongs, which is to the trash bin as a liar, cheater, stealer, and enemy of women.

As I posited above, it is the latter – women – who could tilt this race toward Harris in the next six weeks of the campaign.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

On the day of the presidential debate – perhaps the only one – I depart from that federal subject to write about politics in Oregon.

Also, not about the failings of Donald Trump today, though, of course, there is more to write about that, a lot more.

Today, it’s about the Oregon Legislature.

If I was still a lobbyist in Oregon, I’d be thinking a lot about the question in this blog headline.

Why?

Well, 90 legislators in Oregon – some of whom have not been elected or re-elected yet – will be heading soon to Salem for their long legislative session starting after the first of the year.  And they’ll stay for at least five months.

What they’ll do when they are at the State Capitol is open to debate.

And, again, if I was still a lobbyist, I’d be trying to help my clients prepare for what was ahead — good, bad, or indifferent.

For one thing, all the Legislature MUST do in Salem is enact the State of Oregon’s next two-year budget for 2025-27.

Of course, many lawmakers want to do much more.  Which, after all, may be why they launched bids to get elected.

For me, one of the basic issues in a legislative session, in a way, is not a specific issue at all.  It is a question about how 90 legislators and the governor will find a way to get along.  Call it the need for bi-partisanship.

Or, will the session devolve into tension and disagreement.

Think of it this way. 

If you had 90 friends and put them, figuratively at least, in a room together, how would they get along?  Would they agree or disagree?  Probably

depends on what they were asked to do, but the imagery is good in the sense that it helps to understand what legislators will face as they arrive and stay in Salem.

In “their” room, the State Capitol, they have to find a way to get along.

A main factor in any session is the split between Democrats and Republicans.

Some predictions are that Democrats will enjoy super-majorities – three-fifths control — in both the House and the Senate (18 votes in the 30-member Senate and 36 in the 60-member House).  If it comes to pass, that means Democrats will, not only control the political agenda, but they will have enough votes on tax increases to enact such increases without any Republican support if they want to do so.

Plus, Democrats will have control of the central office at the Capitol, the one occupied by Tina Kotek, who is in the middle of her first term as governor, so, if tax increases pass, it is likely she would sign them.

Will Democrats enact tax increases on their own?  Who knows?

But, one reality is that there are “two Oregons” in the state.  One is urban Oregon where many voters, most of them Democrats, tend to want more state government spending, perhaps with higher taxes.

The other is rural Oregon where many voters, most of them Republicans, tend to want less spending and reduced taxes.

Bridging the “two Oregons” will go a long way toward decisions about how the session proceeds.

And, a quick additional note.  Some analysts say there are actually three Oregons – urban, rural, and suburban.   In the latter, it is hard to predict the number of Democrats or Republicans and many suburban districts switch from one party in one election to the other party in the next election.

Finally, here is a quick summary of some other issues facing lawmakers:

• Fires:  Oregon House Republicans are calling on the Legislature to reform forest management and logging policies they say would prevent large fires from starting and spreading.  There also may be a need for more money to fires.

• Housing:  This has been a major issue for Governor Kotek, so it is likely to remain so.

• Water:  Access to water has not been as major an issue in Oregon as it has been in states to the south, but it could become more significant this session.

• Homelessness:  This is linked to housing, but most legislators are not sure what to do about the problem.  Perhaps they should look at Church at the Park in Salem which has made progress on a number of fronts.

• Transportation:  A group of legislators has been making a run around the state to take testimony on what, if anything should be done.  Comments gathered will be used by legislators to craft a transportation package, but because any package could include a gas tax increase, it is not likely to be politically popular.

All of this said, paint me as being very glad I am retired.  I’ll remain active from my post in the cheap seats in Salem, but glad no longer involved directly at the Ca;pitol.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 was asked the question in this blog headline the other day and my answer was “no.”

Interesting for a political junkie like me to answer that way.

But, here are my reasons:

• First, I’d rather read about the debate the following day in three national newspapers – the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.  Which together give me a center-right and center-left perspective.

• Second, given the balanced perspectives of the three papers, I end up with a nuanced view of what the debate produced.

• And, third, I don’t want to endure the to-ing and fro-ing of the analysts on the scene who try to dissect what has been said or not said.

As the debate nears, it appears the two candidates – Donald Trump, whatever he is, but not a true Republican, and Kamala Harris, a true Democrat – are essentially neck-and-neck.

So, that’s why my fond hope is that Trump will skewer himself by his usual over-the-top comments.  Which is why the Harris camp was advocating for open mikes so Trump can talk himself and others to death. 

It’s always all about him, and he is ever the victim.  He probably cannot do anything other than what comes through his brain and enters his mouth.

Harris, for her part, will have to be better than she was a few years ago on the candidate-for-president or vice-president debates.  It appears to me that she has matured enough to accomplish that objective.

In a story in the Wall Street Journal this morning, the reporter wrote this:

“’I’ll be paying attention to their words, the truthfulness of it,’ said a congresswoman, who represents most of Pennsylvania’s Montgomery County in the Philadelphia suburbs.

“’Is it factual?  Based on what you all care about?  What we care about, what our families care about?  Or is it demeaning?  Is it othering?  Is it filled with hatred or bigotry?  ‘I’ll be looking for the bright and the light and the love.’

“She didn’t even have to say, ‘Vote for Harris,’ and her statement reflected something important about presidential debates.  While the panel of journalists moderating Tuesday’s event will and should ask about specific issues, the relatively small number of voters who are still undecided or might be open to switching are far likelier to judge Harris and Trump on their affect, coherence, empathy and toughness.”

I agree.  Which, I suspect, is one of Harris’ advantages.

Meanwhile, beyond the debate, Trump continues to be selling himself…literally.

This from the Washington Post:

“With less than 10 weeks before the presidential election, Trump had a message for voters in late August:  He would be selling more digital trading cards for $99 each.

“Fifty all new stunning digital trading cards — it’s really something. These cards show me dancing and even holding some bitcoins.”

Trump will sell anything – even a Bible with his name on it – and even his soul, if he has one.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

When you Donald Trump talk, do you have any idea what he just said?

I don’t.  Few do.

I have been ultimately critical of Trump for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that he hates the country he supposedly wants to lead…again.

But this week, Atlantic Magazine used good word to describe one of Trump’s major problems — incoherence.

When he says something, he puts words in his mouth which happen to flow from his brain.  Call it brain and mouth disease.

He has it in spades.

Consider this example provided by The Atlantic:

“The lack of clear policy commitments in Trump’s response yesterday to a question about childcare is a problem.  But the biggest problem, the problem that all journalistic analysis of Trump’s response ought to lead with, is that his answer makes absolutely no sense.

“Yesterday, at the Economic Club of New York, one member asked Trump a very specific question about his policy priorities:  ‘If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child-care affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?’

“Trump’s reply was not only not specific, it was incoherent.  After a little throat-clearing about how ‘important’ an issue child-care is, he seemed to turn to a discussion of his nebulous idea to increase tariffs on foreign imports, although even that is hard to ascertain.

“The lack of clear policy commitments in Trump’s response is a problem; so is the fact that the tariff plan he has been hawking is likely to raise prices for American consumers by billions of dollars.  But the biggest problem, the problem that all journalistic analysis of Trump’s response ought to lead with, is that his answer makes absolutely no sense.

“Earlier this summer, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, warned about ‘one of the most pernicious biases in journalism, the bias toward coherence.’  Journalists ‘feel, understandably, that it is our job to make things make sense,’ he wrote.  ‘But what if the actual story is that politics today makes no sense?’”

The senior editor of The Atlantic, Isabel Fattal, concurred, saying that she spends much of her time reading through press coverage of Trump’s latest statements.

“In this case,” she adds, “I was heartened to see at least a few analyses leading with the incoherence of his child-care reply.  But press coverage of Trump’s statements is not actually serving readers unless each and every article begins with the fact that his words are gibberish.

“Trump’s inability to respond to the most basic of policy questions without devolving into inarticulate rambling does not bode well for next week’s debate.  A similar performance then could show the American public once again that the man is not fit to be president.  But it would help if journalists would report accurately on what we’re all seeing in front of us.”

So, the Atlantic raises two good points.

1. Trump speaks mostly gibberish.  Call it incoherence.

• Journalists need to do a better job of describing it as that – incoherent, though I worry they won’t do that important job out of a concern that they “need to be fair.”  But, to me, “fair” means that writers need to call out Trump for what he is, a provider of gibberish.
  
  

To voters, I say don’t go with Trump.

To journalists – and, at one point in my career, I was one – I say do a better job of reporting Trump’s incoherence.