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 few columns in major national newspapers recently have followed a question-answer format to help readers understand more about politics as the national presidential election heads into its final weeks.

I use that approach today, though, in fact, I both ask the questions and provide the answers.

QUESTION:  What ought to mark presidential candidates?

ANSWER:  Solid character based on years of experience handling tough public policy issues.  Plus, rigorous adherence to the truth.

QUESTION:  What qualities do you value in a presidential candidate?

ANSWER:  Candidates who appear as they are without crafting an image that displays them as what they are not.  Call this a “what you see is what you get” ethic.

QUESTION:  Name another particular credential you value in a candidate.

ANSWER:  The ability to admit an error if a candidate has made one, correct that error, and then move on without being called a flip-flopper – unless, of course, that is what a candidate is doing…just responding to political winds.

QUESTION:  Name another value.

ANSWER:  The willingness to accept the outcome at the polls without instituting a riot to overcome the outcome.

As for Trump, if he loses the election, he says he intends to use U.S. troops – yes, American military troops — to go after what he calls “radical-left lunatics.”  Who knows what he means by that term?  Perhaps just those who oppose him.

QUESTION:  What is really at stake in this election?

ANSWER:  The future of America as we know it.

Consider this from writer Peter Wehner in The Atlantic:

‘The nominee for the Republican Party, Donald Trump, is a squalid figure, and the squalor is not subtle.  His vileness, his lawlessness, and his malevolence are undisguised.  At this point, it is reasonable to conclude that those qualities are a central part of Trump’s appeal to many of the roughly 75 million people who will vote for him in three weeks.

“They revel in his vices; they are vivified by them.  Folie à millions.

“Trump may lose the election, and, by that loss, America may escape the horrifying fate of another term.  But we have to acknowledge this, too:  The man whom the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called ‘fascist to the core’ and ‘the most dangerous person to this country’ is in a razor-thin contest against Kamala Harris, a woman who, whether you agree with her or not, is well within the normal boundaries of American politics.

“If he loses, he will not concede. Trump will instead attempt to tear the country apart.  He can count on the near-total support of his party, and the majority of the white evangelical world.  They will once again rally to his side, in the name of Jesus.”

To which, in regard to the last phrase, I say “balderdash.”  Trump does not deserve to be listed in the same sentence with Jesus.

Or, this from Washington Post writer Dana Milbank that summarizes Trump derangement:

“Under the stress of the final weeks of the campaign, Trump has somehow become ever more bonkers than he already was.  Over the past week, he proposed using the National Guard or the military against ‘radical left lunatics’ on Election Day, and he called the United States an ‘occupied country.’

“He stood onstage at what was supposed to be a ‘town hall meeting’ and swayed and danced to his campaign playlist for 39 minutes.  He bickered with an interviewer at the Economic Club of Chicago and slurred words at a rally in Georgia.  He threatened to impose 2,000 per cent tariffs on cars.

“He called his opponents the ‘enemy from within’ and made up stories about migrant gangs taking over buildings in Colorado.  He held a Fox News event with women and proclaimed himself ‘the father of IVF,’ then acknowledged he asked a female Republican senator to ‘explain IVF’ to him.

QUESTION:  What have you had enough of in this election?

ANSWER:  Donald Trump.

I have had more than enough – read, too much – of Trump as he preens to become president again.

I thought of this yesterday:

What if we had a presidential election that met this overall goal:  Talk truth, add context, and get a penalty for lying.

Imagine that.  We could vote on the basis of what we heard, without having to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Won’t happen.  No, it won’t because, unfortunately, many voters in this country want the negative, even the lies, which is why they hew toward Trump.

Don’t count me among them.  So call me poly-anna – or a supporter of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.