PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The one word headline on this blog is all I need to muster to commemorate solid action by the Biden Administration.

Finally!

The Administration is taking the first steps to obliterate one of the most obscene actions of the perverted Donald Trump.  It was his effort, an unfortunately successful one, that will stand in history as obscene and egregious….to separate children and their parents at the U.S. Border.

Call it what it was:  Kidnapping.

I have written about this before, hoping that the Biden Administration would take action to overturn Trump.  Now it has.

So, I devote this blog to the Washington Post summary of the action that appeared under this headline:

Massive family reunification effort starts with a mother and son at the border

Now for the article.

SAN DIEGO — Three years, seven months and four days after U.S. immigration agents separated her from her child, Sandra Ortíz was walking through the San Ysidro border crossing Tuesday when she spotted Bryan Chávez.

“My son!” she cried. “I missed you so much!”

They held each other quietly in the center of the pedestrian plaza, the frenzy of the border a blur around them.

Ortíz and Chávez were among the thousands of families separated by the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018 under a policy intended to deter migration. Now they were among the first reunited under the Biden administration — the start of a massive relocation of parents deported by one U.S. president and returned by another. In total, more than 1,000 families are expected to be reunited.

Ortíz, 48, from central Mexico, had packed her bag days earlier: three outfits, a pair of shoes and the birth certificate of her son, whom she hadn’t seen since they were separated at the border in 2017, when he was 15. He’s now almost 19.

Chávez eventually moved in with relatives in Southern California, where he enrolled in high school. Ortíz was deported alone to Mexico.

In the days leading up to the reunification, she could barely sleep.

“I keep thinking about what it’s going to be like. How will I react? How will he react?” she said Monday. “He’s not the same boy I remember.”

U.S. to begin reuniting migrant families separated under ‘cruel’ Trump policy, DHS secretary says

They’re one of four families to be reunited this week as part of what government officials and immigration lawyers describe as a trial balloon — a test to find the most effective ways to return parents to their children without reviving the trauma they experienced when they were separated. And so it was with some reservation that the lawyers working on their case told Ortíz that the process would involve her returning to the same border crossing where she had been separated from her son.

“Hopefully it’s not a triggering event,” said Carol Anne Donohoe, Ortíz’s attorney, of the law firm Al Otro Lado.

“I think it’s all going to come flooding back to me when I’m there,”Ortíz said. As she walked to the immigration office, she imagined agents handcuffing her again and leading her away.

But this time, they processed her quickly, accepting her humanitarian parole paperwork, leading her to the pedestrian bridge. Chávez was waiting in a red shirt and black jeans and holding a bouquet of balloons that said, “Best Mom Ever.”

Ortíz and Chávez had fled their village in Mexico’s Michoacán state, where it seemed as though everything that could go wrong did. Her husband disappeared in 2010; his body was found two days later with bullet wounds. Then the local cartel delivered the body of their teenage neighbor, Chávez’s friend, dismembered in a bag. And then they began trying to recruit Chávez.

“That’s when we decided to go,” Ortíz said.

It was October 2017. The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy wouldn’t be officially implemented until April 2018, but authorities had already begun separating migrant families at the border.

Ortíz and Chávez turned themselves in at the San Ysidro port of entry and requested asylum. Two days later, she says, they were taken to a nondescript office.

“They told me to say goodbye to my son, that I wouldn’t see him again,” she said. “And then they took him away.”

Ortíz was detained for more than a month with other mothers who had been separated from their children. Like Ortíz, most were unable to communicate with their children during their time in detention. She said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers told them their sons and daughters would be put up for adoption.

Eventually, Ortíz was told that she had failed her “credible fear” interview, the first step in gaining asylum, and would be deported. She asked for her son to be deported with her, she said, but officials told her it wasn’t possible.

After Ortíz was sent back to Tijuana, she called her older son. José Arturo had migrated to the United States years earlier. He told her that Chávez had arrived in Southern California and the two of them were living together.

Ortíz took a bus back to Michoacán. She moved in with her parents on the outskirts of their town. For weeks, she refused to go outside. She made video calls to Chávez, but they mostly just stared at each other and cried.

“I assumed, ‘This is it. I’ll never see him again,’ ” she said.

Ortíz found a job harvesting lemons, earning about $10 per day, three days per week. She and Chávez settled into a routine of about two video calls a week. She charted his progress from call to call.

First he was learning English. Then he was enrolling in advanced-placement classes. He moved in with his sister, Yeritzel, who had migrated separately to the United States. Then he was graduating high school early. He told Ortíz about his prom and his first full-time job. He ended almost every call by saying, “We’ll be together soon.”

But when he hung up the phone, he said, he would tell his friends: “I wish she was here for this.”

President Biden promised during his campaign last year to reunite families separated by the Trump administration. When he was elected, Ortíz began to wonder whether a return to the United States might be possible.

Al Otro Lado, the law firm, had contacted her and told her to be patient. But her lawyers grew frustrated with the pace of the reunification process.

“We had to keep telling our clients to wait and wait and wait,” Donohoe said.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to process the first few returning parents at the border. Ortíz’s flight to Tijuana — her first time in an airplane — was booked. So was a coronavirus test and an appointment with Customs and Border Protection in San Ysidro.

“We are reuniting the first group of families, many more will follow, and we recognize the importance of providing these families with the stability and resources they need to heal,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters Sunday.

A small group of lawyers and advocates, including Donohoe, made arrangements for about three dozen parents, among the first group slated to return. The challenges were many. The passport process in Guatemala, for example, proved painstaking. Some parents had limited cellphone access and could be reached only once a week. Others had developed a deep mistrust of the United States after their separations and worried that parts of the reunification program might be a scam.

Another group of advocates was charged with finding hundreds of separated parents who have not been located since their deportations. Four-hundred and sixty-five remain “unreachable.” A fraction are probably living with the children in the United States, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

In June 2018, a judge ordered the Trump administration to reunify separated families within 30 days, and hundreds were. But by then, hundreds more had already been deported without their children.

Because the Trump administration kept little contact information for the parents they had deported, advocates were left to fund radio advertisements that aired across Central America.

“If you or someone you know was separated from a child at the border with the United States between 2017 and 2018,” the narrator of one ad said, “this information will interest you.”

A few days ago, before Ortíz left for the border, Chávez gave her a video tour of her future home, including two neatly made beds next to each other.

“How pretty,” she said, smiling at the screen, which then flashed again to her son’s face, more mature than she remembered, with a dark shadow of facial hair.

“He looks like a man,” she thought.

And then she thought: “He looks sad. He’s not the same son I had. This whole thing has changed him.”

Asked to envision the weeks after the reunification, she paused.

“Being together again will be beautiful,” she said. “But it might not be easy.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For anyone interested in questions that involve an unimportant issue in contrast to the world’s woes, here’s one:  What to do about the fact that some pros hit a golf ball farther than ever before?

Some will say who cares.  Others will say it matters in the game of golf.  Still others have no opinion, if only because the issue is so obscure.

I say the question matters.  Perhaps that is because golf is a game I love and it occupies a lot of my time in retirement.

There have been various proposals to stem the ever-growing long distance golf shots, which, frankly, threaten the character of the came.

• The best golf pro in history, Jack Nicklaus, suggests changing the golf ball so it won’t go as far.

• Some suggest changing the nature of golf courses – make the rough grow very high and narrow fairways at the same time so the so-called “bomb and gougers” will have to tone down their shots in order to remain in play.

• Some suggest reducing the number of golf clubs a player can carry – the current limit is 14 – so golfers wouldn’t have as many options to hit the ball so far.

This is important is the sense that doing nothing could present a challenge to golf course operators and architects who will have to make courses ever longer, a threat which carries a number of environmental considerations, as well as issues for current courses around the country.

One of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, who edits Links Magazine, showed up this weekend with his perception on the golf distance issue.  Here is an excerpt what he wrote:

“So it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:   Don’t simply limit the length of clubs, limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.

“Sound outlandish? Believe me, it’s no more outlandish than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

“I learned that from bitter experience.  About 40 years ago, when I was editor of GOLF Magazine, I wrote a column in support of Jack Nicklaus’s idea of throttling back the golf ball.  I made what I thought was a cogent case.  The day the column appeared, our publisher got a call from the CEO of Titleist informing him that, because of my views, he was cancelling its $2 million advertising schedule.

“For the sake of non-argument, let’s leave the ball alone and cut back the clubs.  That shouldn’t frighten the equipment makers.  After all, I’m not suggesting they stop producing 7-hybrids or 4-irons or 62-degree wedges.  The fact that we’d carry only seven clubs doesn’t mean we’d own only seven.

“Quite the contrary, I would think each of us would want to have in our garage, car trunk, or locker a complete arsenal— even more than 14—from which to assemble our desired seven.  Keep in mind also that set makeup would vary not only from player to player based upon strength and skill, but from day to day according to the challenge of the course and the playing conditions.

Peper makes solid points.

But so does one of my friends who wrote this to me over the weekend:

“Remember the U.S. Open at Merion, one of the shortest venues for an Open.  The pros had a heck of a time.  I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer, we need to go in the opposite direction.  Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.”

Also good points.

No doubt the distance debate will continue, even as we anticipate finally getting some answers from the United States Golf Association in the U.S. and the Royal & Ancient in Europe.

As Peper put it:

“After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.”

Well, a final point is that, for me and many of my friends – they are old folks – the distance issue won’t matter much.  We don’t hit the golf ball far enough any more, if we ever did.  So let the debate continue.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For anyone interested in questions that involve an unimportant issue in contrast to the world’s woes, here’s one:  What to do about the fact that some pros hit a golf ball farther than ever before?

Some will say who cares.  Others will say it matters in the game of golf.  Still others have no opinion, if only because the issue is so obscure.

I say the question matters.  Perhaps that is because golf is a game I love and it occupies a lot of my time in retirement.

There have been various proposals to stem the ever-growing long distance golf shots, which, frankly, threaten the character of the came.

• The best golf pro in history, Jack Nicklaus, suggests changing the golf ball so it won’t go as far.

• Some suggest changing the nature of golf courses – make the rough grow very high and narrow fairways at the same time so the so-called “bomb and gougers” will have to tone down their shots in order to remain in play.

• Some suggest reducing the number of golf clubs a player can carry – the current limit is 14 – so golfers wouldn’t have as many options to hit the ball so far.

This is important is the sense that doing nothing could present a challenge to golf course operators and architects who will have to make courses ever longer, a threat which carries a number of environmental considerations, as well as issues for current courses around the country.

One of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, who edits Links Magazine, showed up this weekend with his perception on the golf distance issue.  Here is an excerpt what he wrote:

“So it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:   Don’t simply limit the length of clubs, limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.

“Sound outlandish? Believe me, it’s no more outlandish than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

“I learned that from bitter experience.  About 40 years ago, when I was editor of GOLF Magazine, I wrote a column in support of Jack Nicklaus’s idea of throttling back the golf ball.  I made what I thought was a cogent case.  The day the column appeared, our publisher got a call from the CEO of Titleist informing him that, because of my views, he was cancelling its $2 million advertising schedule.

“For the sake of non-argument, let’s leave the ball alone and cut back the clubs.  That shouldn’t frighten the equipment makers.  After all, I’m not suggesting they stop producing 7-hybrids or 4-irons or 62-degree wedges.  The fact that we’d carry only seven clubs doesn’t mean we’d own only seven.

“Quite the contrary, I would think each of us would want to have in our garage, car trunk, or locker a complete arsenal— even more than 14—from which to assemble our desired seven.  Keep in mind also that set makeup would vary not only from player to player based upon strength and skill, but from day to day according to the challenge of the course and the playing conditions.

Peper makes solid points.

But so does one of my friends who wrote this to me over the weekend:

“Remember the U.S. Open at Merion, one of the shortest venues for an Open.  The pros had a heck of a time.  I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer, we need to go in the opposite direction.  Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.”

Also good points.

No doubt the distance debate will continue, even as we anticipate finally getting some answers from the United States Golf Association in the U.S. and the Royal & Ancient in Europe.

As Peper put it:

“After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.”

Well, a final point is that, for me and many of my friends – they are old folks – the distance issue won’t matter much.  We don’t hit the golf ball far enough any more, if we ever did.  So let the debate continue.

Interesting but I’m not a fan. I’m reminded you of the US Open at Marion – one of the shortest venues for an Open. The pros had a heck of a time. I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer – we need to go the opposite direction. Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I had what I consider to be a brilliant thought a couple days ago – a thought about how to manage the current stage of the confounding virus.

Before enunciating my brilliant thought, these comments:

• Truth be told, it was my wife who first came up with the thought, so I piggyback on her brilliance.

• Also, truth be told, the Oregonian newspaper mentioned the same thought the other day – see below – so I am a follower, not a leader.

• And, I continue to be glad that I am not involved in a position in state government to provide advice on managing the virus.  There appear to be no good decisions – at least no good decisions accepted by everyone.  So, for Governor Kate Brown, Health Authority Director Pat Allen and others I know who are involved in the decisions, I say continue to do what you believe is right based on science and statistics.  I also say give them room to make those decisions.

Now, for the idea.

Why not allow those who have received vaccinations the ability to frequent retail establishments such as restaurants, gyms and other facilities?  Require those individuals to present verification of vaccination at the front door, along with photo ID.

Then, let those persons gain the “I have been vaccinated reward,” as long as they observe other useful precautions, such as wearing masks and social distancing.

An approach such as this would achieve two objectives:

1. Reward persons who have gotten vaccines.

• Incent persons without vaccines to get the shots.

“Here is how the Oregonian newspaper reported the idea:

About 30 per cent of Oregonians are fully vaccinated.  When asked by a reporter during Friday’s news conference why she (Governor Brown) wasn’t allowing vaccinated people to patronize businesses indoors — such as dine inside a restaurant – she said she worries that would be unfair to people of certain races and ethnicities who haven’t been immunized at the same rate as the overall population.”

Good point.

But, for me, with all due respect to the governor – and I do know her well and have respect for her – I think she should give further consideration to the good idea of rewarding the vaccinated and incenting the unvaccinated, with a clause designed to give special consideration to racial and ethnic persons who may so far have missed out on vaccine access.

When I mentioned this idea to a friend of mine, he said he wondered how the approach would be enforced, especially if an ardent “anti-vaxxer” showed up at the front door of an establishment and plowed his or her way in.  No good answer for his good question.

So, on and on we go looking for a way out of the Covid virus dilemma.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If you read the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post a day ago, you got strikingly different assessments of President Joseph Biden’s address to Congress this seek.

No surprise, I suppose.  Because that’s what almost always happens with the right-of-center Wall Street Journal and the left-of-center Washington Post.

In other words, it’s a good idea to read more than one journalistic outlet – yes, if you can find good ones like the Journal and the Post – to get more than one viewpoint and then form your own conclusions.

For me, with Biden’s address, my conclusions are these: 

• It’s good to have a mature, reasonable human being in the White House who uses good words to make proposals.
• Yet, Biden’s proposals go too far to rely on government to insert itself into what should be private decisions, with little clarity about how the aggressive map will be funded.
• Perhaps that what you do when negotiations start – you go high and then, presumably at least, end up somewhere in the middle.
• But, negotiation requires a two-way street.  Led by Biden – he was elected president, after all – Democrats propose.  Republicans, then, need to offer real, perhaps lesser proposals, rather than going so low so early that what they propose isn’t negotiating.

The following viewpoints illustrate the competing assessments of what Biden said to Congress, even as, for the first time in history, he stood before two women on the dais – Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

FROM WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL WRITERS:  The historic expansion of government, education, and health- and child-care benefits Biden proposed Wednesday would make it substantially easier for Americans to work, raise children and educate themselves.  It avoids some of the less appealing ideas congressional Democrats have been pushing.  And yet it has significant gaps, both in taxing and in spending.

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  First, here was the headline — Biden’s Cradle-to-Grave Government/His latest $1.8 trillion plan rejects the old social contract of work for benefits.

The progressive hits keep coming from the Biden Administration, and the latest is the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan introduced in broad strokes on Wednesday. It’s more accurate to call this the plan to make the middle class dependent on government from cradle to grave. The government will tell you sometime later, after you’re hooked to the state, how it will force you to pay for it.

We’d call the price tag breathtaking, but by now what’s another $2 trillion?  Add $2 trillion or so each for the Covid and green energy (“infrastructure”) bills, and that’s $6 trillion of new spending in 100 days.  That doesn’t include the regular federal budget of more than $4 trillion a year. No worries, mate, the Federal Reserve will monetize the debt.

But the cost, while staggering, isn’t the only or even the biggest problem. The destructive part is the way the plan seeks to insinuate government cash and the rules that go with it into all of the major decisions of family life. The goal is to expand the entitlement state to make Americans rely on government and the political class for everything they don’t already provide.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN, WASHINGTON POST OPINION WRITER:  It did not look like a typical presidential address before Congress.  Wednesday night’s event, which lacked the packed House chamber due to pandemic guidelines, was missing some of the buzz and drama of past speeches.

But there was a far more important difference this year:  The return of normal presidential rhetoric and the embrace of traditional democrat values.  As an added bonus, Americans saw two powerful women perched behind the president — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Harris.  It made for a compelling, historic tableau and a reminder that only one party sends a consistently inclusive message.

FROM KARL ROVE, WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION WRITER:  …the Biden Administration acts as if it has a broad mandate to pursue the most ambitious left-wing agenda in history, involving a massive expansion of the federal government and unsustainable spending increases.

So, I say make own decision about all of this.  But, in any event, my hope is that those in charge in Washington, D.C. will get about the real business of government, which is to find the smart middle ground. 

That means Biden will have to get and give.  And it will mean Republicans in Congress will have to do the same.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Remember that song by one of my favorite bands – Credence Clearwater Revival – “Stuck in Lodi Again.”

Well, the words came rolling through my mind a couple days ago when my wife and I (along with our faithful dog, Callaway) traveled north to Salem, Oregon from our winter sojourn in La Quinta, California.

The town of Lodi is about halfway home so we often stay there to make the full, 16-hour drive in two days, not one.  For some years, we stayed in an Interstate-5 roadside motel and, thus, didn’t know anything about the quaint town five miles inland – Lodi – which also is fertile wine country.

This time, again, we stayed in an AirBNB, having a total house with garage, abutting a pomegranate orchard.  Unfortunately, the pomegranates weren’t ripe yet.

While “Stuck in Lodi Again” and on the way north, I thought of some of my impressions of trip, most of which is along I-5.

• Amazon trucks:  The number of these trucks in incredible, more than double the kind you see with any other brand.  Makes one think about the incredible work Amazon does to deliver on-line requests almost anywhere in a day or two.

• UPS and Fed-Ex trucks:  To repeat, not so many.

• The word “logistics:”  As you drive by huge numbers of big rigs, many of them announced that they are involved in ”logistics.”  That is a word quickly becoming the norm.  Transportation?  No.  Hauling?  No.  Call carrying stuff “logistics.”

• Major hiring:  All along the way, on many trucks we passed, as well as buildings near the highway, we saw “we are hiring” signs.  So, they are jobs awaiting those who don’t have them or are dislocated by the pandemic.

• California roads:  Long sections of I-5, as well as feeder roads from La Quinta north, are in dire need of repair.  The bumps and holes may be one result of so much truck traffic.  But, if you give California credit for having so many lanes of traffic heading north through major cities such as Sacramento and Stockton, other side of the coin is road disrepair.

• Big rigs transporting Tesla vehicles to Oregon:  During our five-month sojourn in the California desert, we noticed a large number of Tesla vehicles.  Then, on the trip, we noticed a few big rigs transporting Tesla vehicles to Oregon.  Must be a growing market here.

• Farms along the way:  As we drove, my wife Nancy had a good idea — this:  Ask farmers to put signs on their crops visible from the highway so we know what we are seeing.  Sometimes it’s obvious, as with rice in the paddies or oranges on the trees.  Sometimes it’s not.

• Cows in dirt fields:  My wife also moans – as I do – when we see so many cows lying around in dirt fields.  Better to see them munching on green grass.

See, nothing major here.  Just impressions along the way.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I wrote a few days ago about an Oregonian newspaper article listing potential candidates for governor when the incumbent’s (Kate
Brown) final term expires in about a year.

There were only Democrats listed among the potential candidates and I noted that fact.

Then, late this week, the on-line Oregon Catalyst newsletter came up with a list of potential Republican candidates, using information provided by a group called the “Oregon Taxpayer Association” – which, by the way, does not include me, an Oregon taxpayer, because the group is too far right for me.

No wonder the Oregonian didn’t include any of the R names. 

I am a political junkie of sorts and I didn’t recognize all of the names on the list based on the Catalyst report – some, but not all.  See if you recognize any of the names, which are provided with percentages based on a “straw poll,” whatever that is.

45 per cent – Stan Pulliam
21 per cent – Bud Pierce
19 per cent – Bill Post
7 per cent – Tootie Smith
5 per cent – Dallas Heard
3 per cent – Paul Romero

Leading candidate Stan Pulliam is the Mayor of Sandy. Bud Pierce was the 2016 Republican governor candidate I do know because he is from Salem. 

Bill Post is a state representative and former radio host, whom I know represents of Salem.

Tootie Smith is chair of Clackamas County Commission and a former state representative, whom I also know from her time in Salem.

Dallas Heard is a state senator and current Oregon GOP Chair. Paul Romero is a former Congressional candidate.  I don’t know either of them.

The fact that I know some, not all, of the Republican names also indicates that I suspect none of them will have any capacity to run statewide.

That means a Democrat is likely to succeed Brown.  And that means that a run of Ds in the state’s top political job will continue unabated.  

The last Republican governor of Oregon was the late Victor Atiyeh — and that was more than 35 years ago.

As a voter in Oregon, I wish there would be a genuine race for governor.  That would give us a chance to compare and contrast credentials no matter for whom you choose to vote.  As it is, the Democrat will win.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In the aftermath of events like the guilty verdict for Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, politicians often utter rather meaningless comments.

Not so with Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read.

His comments indicate a depth of reaction and analysis that reflects well on his character.  He also uses words effectively.

Yes, I am biased.

I know Read well, having lobbied him over the years at the Oregon Legislature and watching him rise there, given his intellect and passion.  He always dealt with me – on behalf of my clients – with honesty and clarity.  Sometimes we agreed.  Other times we didn’t.

Now, Read, a Democrat, is being mentioned as a possible candidate for governor when Kate Brown reaches the end of her last term in office.

I say, good.  He should run and give Oregonians an opportunity to consider his credentials for the state’s top political job.

Here is a text of Read’s comments after the Chauvin verdict:

Let me be clear:  Derek Chauvin being found guilty is a tremendous relief, and the right outcome.  The whole country has watched and witnessed racial injustice, civil unrest, and the need for policing reforms.  This verdict is important, and we’re all relieved.  But this long overdue conversation must not end here.

Communities across the country, including right here in Oregon, have been ripped apart by a legacy of racial injustice.  We all have to do our part to build a better, more equitable future.  But more importantly, this needs to be a time of listening, and elevating other voices – voices that for too long were ignored or intentionally sidelined.

I wrote to you a few months ago about Martin Luther King Day and mentioned one of the incredible organizations doing this important work in Oregon.  If you aren’t sure how you can participate in this movement, take a look at the Black United Fund of Oregon. They’re one of a number of important groups making a positive impact for our communities in Oregon every day.  Whether you’re a volunteer, advocate, or donor, I know that the work you’re doing on behalf of the Black United Fund of Oregon, or other groups, will make a real difference.

The moral arc of history does not bend easily, but together, we’re up to the task.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have written about this subject before, mostly in connection with a major political issue these days – whether President Joe Biden is serious about developing bi-partisan solutions to public policy challenges.

Biden advocates say he is serious.  He says he is open to serious counter-proposals.

de asays

Leading Republicans say he isn’t.  They say he is talking about bi-partisanship, not acting on it.

It appears never the twain shall meet.

In a piece in the Washington Post this week, contributing columnist Matt Bai wrote that Republican moderates need a negotiating lesson.

His lead comments:

“It’s been a rough couple of years for Republican moderates. They lost most of their seats.  A reactionary president took over their party. Brooks Brothers went out of business.

“But sometimes, in our darkest moments, what we need is some tough love and brutal honesty.  So here it is.

“It’s time to stop whining like a bunch of cranky toddlers and get into the game.

“I’m talking about a rather extraordinary set of interviews highlighted in Politico’s Playbook last week, in which the so-called G-10 — a group of moderate Republican senators — erupted over what they feel is unfair treatment at the hands of the White House and media.”

Apparently, Bai continued, these senators and their aides thought they were going to be pivotal dealmakers with a president who claimed to want bi-partisanship, especially when they were invited to the White House in the early days of the Administration to talk through their ideas for a covid-19 relief bill.

“What’s amazing to me is that a group of people who take such pride in their understanding of business could so completely fail to grasp the basic principles of negotiation.

“Here’s an exercise.  Let’s say you want to sell your car, and you set an asking price of $10,000, figuring you’ll take a little less.

“A guy comes along and offers you $3,000 instead.  Are you supposed to meet him in the middle?  Or, are you going to tell him to come back when he’s serious about buying the car?

“That’s pretty much the situation in which Biden found himself. After Biden proposed a $1.9 trillion relief bill, on which he was probably expecting a reasonable counteroffer, the 10 Republican senators answered with a proposal for … $600 billion. That wasn’t even in the zip code of reasonable.

“Even then, they couldn’t guarantee the vote of every Republican in the room for their smaller package, much less anyone else in the caucus.”

The car example is a good one that, to me, illustrates these notions: 

• It takes two sides to negotiate.
• Both sides have to be genuine and truthful in reacting to the other.
• One side has to lead – in this case, the president who was elected to make proposals – and other side has to respond in the sense that its task is to dispose, which doesn’t mean toss presidential ideas in the dustbin. 

On occasion, the best response, in fact, could be “no,” but that is the case when the issue in play truly is one where principals and truth demand a “no,” not just a political “no.”  It is not when such issues as pandemic controls and infrastructure are in play.  Those are issues for the entire country.

Bai continued:

“All this might have made sense if it were really just the kind of strategic feint Republican leaders used during the Obama years: Offer something obviously untenable and then gleefully blame the president for refusing to compromise.  But this group actually seemed to think they were going to drive away in the car.

“I happen to believe the country is better served by having serious-minded Republicans at the negotiating table.  I think it would be better for Biden and for all of us if he were forced to make some hard choices about what to prioritize and how to pay for it, rather than tossing in every imaginable new program and slamming it home with a party-line vote.

“That won’t happen, though, until Republican moderates stop their sobbing about the injustice of it all and start offering some realistic alternatives.  They have another opportunity with the infrastructure bill, where there seems to be some hope of finding a reasonable compromise.”

To Bai’s contentions, I say he is right on.  It’s time to negotiate real solutions to real public policy challenges for the benefit of all Americans, not time to engage in politics as usual.

So far, Republicans appear to be guilty of Bai’s notion that they offer untenable responses, then “gleefully blame the president for refusing to negotiate.”

Put another way, there are costs to presidential elections.  In the case of Trump, he had the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to fulminate.

In the case of Biden, he has the same bully pulpit, but, though not perfect, he tends to “act like a president.”  So, it’s time for Republicans to engage in real negotiations.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The Oregonian newspaper produced a story recently indicating who might be thinking of running for governor when the current one, Kate Brown, reaches the end of her time in the state’s top political job.

What was interesting, though not surprising:  Not one Republican name made the top list.

That’s because Republicans have great difficulty surmounting the Democrat registration edge in the state’s urban areas.  There has not been a Republican governor for more than 35 years.  Vic Atiyeh was the last one and, as the preamble to this blog indicates, it was my please to work for him.

Chris Dudley came close in a race against John Kitzhaber – he, Dudley, won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties.  He just couldn’t offset Kitzhaber’s edge in Multnomah County and other urban areas.

Under this headline — Many Oregon Democrats eye 2022 governor’s race, 1st competitive intra-party contest in a decade — the Oregonian listed these Democrats as considering the race:

• Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
• Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read
• Oregon Labor Commissioner Val Hoyle
• Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek
• Multnomah County Commission Chair Deborah Kafoury.
• Oregon Senator Betsy Johnson

Thus, for the first time in many years, there is a prospect for a competitive Democrat primary.  It appears to be fueling fundraising and campaign activity by these top officials, in what would normally be a downtime after the November 2020 election.

Beaverton area Democrat Read already has raised $100,000 this year and spent $50,000, according to campaign finance records.

Rosenblum, from Portland, has also been spending on political consultants and fundraising this year, after winning re-election last year to a third term as Attorney General.

Speculation also has arisen that Oregon’s new Secretary of State Shemia Fagan might want to run for governor.  A Democrat from the Portland area, she has continued to send a flurry of campaign emails since she took office in January, but, in fact, also told The Oregonian/oregonlive she is not running for governor and intends to serve her full four-year term as secretary of state.  We’ll see.

The state’s last seriously contested Democrat primary occurred in 2010 when former governor Kitzhaber ran against former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.  Kitzhaber ended up trouncing Bradbury 65 per cent to 30 per cent.  Kitzhaber’s resignation in early 2015 pushed Brown into the role as the incumbent governor.  Voters elected and re-elected her in 2016 and 2018, which means she cannot run again.

Back to the other issue here – where are the Republicans?

Over the weeks down here in La Quinta, California for the winter, I have found time to talk, between golf games, to a couple seasoned Oregon political observers who also are friends.  The two used to be Republicans, but renounced the label when they could no longer tolerate the style of former President Donald Trump.

Still, they keep track of Oregon politics.

Their answer and mine.

None of us could think of a Republican who has a ghost of a chance to run for governor – or, perhaps more accurately, actually to be governor.

Where in the world are the Republicans?  I say that not because I automatically want a Republican to win.  I say it because, if there were a Republican candidate for governor, all of us who vote would have a choice to make at the ballot.