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 headline in this blog means at least one thing: I am getting older.

Because, when you look back at how a profession in which you were involved for 25 years is changing, you have to be old to do so.

Two major changes are occurring.

• The first is lobbying in a virtual sense.

Lobbyists these days are reporting that it is far more difficult than in the past to make contact with individual legislators.  Instead of meeting them – even briefly – at the Capitol, in their offices or on the way to committee hearings, lobbyists are reduced to trying to book Zoom appointments.

For me, that would be tough because, to convey perspectives from my clients when I was working, I would rely on individual contact with lawmakers.  Often, that involved meeting legislators in their offices or waiting for them to leave for committee hearings because you knew the route they would take on a walk.

Remember that lobbyists like me were not out to convey their own viewpoints.  They were representing those with an interest in the prospect of new laws in Oregon.  Such viewpoints ought at least to be pointed out to legislators and, like attorneys in court, lobbyists work the process in Capitol hallways, offices and hearings – in other words, “their court.”

I have been retired for a few years, but, if I was back at the Capitol, not sure I’d be effective.

• The second change for lobbying is that at least some legislators are reconsidering tough-to-enforce rules on what could be labeled “gifts” from lobbyists to legislators.

This is occurring about a decade after new gift rules were imposed.

Here is the way the Oregonian newspaper wrote about the development:

“Oregon lawmakers are considering whether to allow lobbyists to wine and dine them without limits, more than a decade after they clamped down on the practice with a broad ethics law.

“The Legislature passed Senate Bill 10 in 2007 after members were embarrassed by reports in The Oregonian/OregonLive on how beer and wine distributors paid for legislators to travel to Hawaii.

“Currently, Oregon law bars legislators and other public officials from accepting more than $50 per year from any entity that wants to influence a government decision.  The limit applies to ‘any single source,’ which means a lobbyist who represents multiple clients could have each of those clients pay for up to $50 of food and beverages for a single lawmaker, according to Ron Bersin, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.”

The change is being proposed by Stayton Senator Fred Girod and has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee, one of the most reasonable committees in Salem.

At a February 23 public hearing, Girod’s proposal got a warm welcome from his Democrat colleagues on the committee.  For one, Senator Ginny Burdick thanked Girod for bringing the idea forward, noting “it’s not always a popular matter to bring forward bills like this but it’s really important.”  Burdick noted that “draconian changes” in Senate Bill 10, the 2007 ethics law, were unpopular with many local public officials at the time.

To the Oregonian, Burdick said:  “There were some egregious circumstances we were trying to address with Senate Bill 10 but it went too far.  We are a culture of relationships.  We achieve what we achieve by reaching out to people who are not like us and finding common ground and finding policies that work for all Oregonians. And if there is food and drink involved in some of those interactions, we shouldn’t be interfering with that.”

I suspect the new legislation won’t pass in Salem, or at least, if a change is made, limits won’t be “unlimited.”

It is likely the Oregonian’s headline – using the term “wining and dining” – will illustrate arguments against the bill.  When I engaged in “wining and dining” as a lobbyist – I didn’t call it that – I never expected anything specific in return from a legislator. 

Not a vote.  Not assurance of support.

What I did hope for was consideration of the perspectives I offered on behalf of clients.

Further, back in 2007 when the limits were first proposed, some organizations raised questions about how the limits would affect trade missions when the method of doing business in a foreign country often involves the exchange of gifts. 

Those who raised questions included my client, the Port of Portland, which sponsored and organized overseas trade missions.

The concern didn’t matter back in 2007 and I don’t know that it would matter much if it were to be raised today, though there is a case to be made that trade missions deserve individual treatment when it comes to “gifts.”

Still, there might be room for middle ground here.

Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner told the Oregonian “sometimes very unintended consequences result from broad legislation.  I think it might be … time to look at all these laws with a little bit more of a fine-tooth comb and see what’s working and what’s not.”

Good point. 

Draconian limits don’t work well. 

Well-designed limits would work.

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 recent days, those of us who label ourselves “political junkies” have had a chance to see one of the worst presidential chiefs of staff in history at the same time as we anticipate one who could become one of the best.

We have just been through a Trump presidency when the occupant of the Oval Office, a buffoon and tyrant, cycled through chiefs of staff like they weren’t even there.

If they did not do his bidding, they were gone.

One of the worst was the person who went out of office with Trump, Mark Meadows.

Chris Whipple, the author of a book about presidential chiefs of staff, wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal contending that Meadows “earned the title of the worst chief of staff in history.”

Here is how Whipple put it:

 “In a secure tent on the Ellipse, as President Trump prepared to incite an angry mob ahead of its assault on the U.S. Capitol, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, smiling from ear to ear, mugged for a video with Donald Trump Jr., as Laura Branigan’s 1982 hit ‘Gloria’ blared in the background.

“For Trump’s glad-handing chief of staff, it was just another day of dutifully holding the president’s coat while the boss took a hammer to democracy. This will be the defining image of Meadows, for which he has earned the title of worst chief of staff in history.”

Now, with President Joe Biden, there is a chief of staff, Ron Klain, who has a breadth of government experience and tenacity that leaves all of the Trump comparators far in his wake, including Meadows.  Among other things, Klain lead the Obama Administration effort deal with the Ebola virus, which puts him in a good position to deal with the coronavirus response, the top issue for the Biden Administration.

That’s probably why congressional Republicans are going after Klain by using such descriptions as “the guy behind the curtain” and “Prime Minister Klain.”  They are trying to push back on someone they see as formidable opponent in the battle over President Biden’s agenda.

Specifically, a Washington Post report says the GOP blames Klain for Biden’s refusal to negotiate the price down on his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, an approach they say conflicts with Biden’s campaign pledges.

Now, many miles from the scene of the action in Washington, D.C., why do I offer my perspective on the chief of staff issue?  Well, two reasons,

First, I gleaned perspectives on the chief of staff position in Oregon as I watched – and worked for – several persons who held the position in past gubernatorial administrations.  To be sure, Oregon is not as big or complicated as D.C., but experience here offers helpful perspectives on what a chief of staff does – or should do.

Second, I did spend time reading the book by Whipple, the title of which was “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.”  A very good read. 

So, from my perch in the cheap seats out West, I have spent a bit of time thinking about credentials for the chief of staff position, in Oregon or in Washington, D.C.  I do so because, in many ways, chiefs of staff are the most important appointed positions under an elected chief executive. 

On an organizational chart, it may not appear to be so on, but clout and authority go with the title.  Thus, here are a few credentials.

• The ability to rely on experience, which means, to state the obvious, that a chief of staff has to have experience to fall back on.  When I was hiring persons to work in state agencies I managed or in my private firm, experience always was the first credential I looked for.

 [The last chief of staff I worked for in Oregon, Gerry Thompson, had a wealth of experience, both in the public and private sectors. That made her an excellent chief for the last Republican governor in Oregon, Vic Atiyeh.  Full disclosure:  I worked for Gerry and she is still a good friend.]

• The ability, not just to tolerate dissent, but to welcome it, for welcoming competing points of view holds the potential to make final decisions better.
• The ability to handle multiple issues at the same time, a credential for any high-level manager. 
• The ability to lead the effort to deal fairly and ethically with members of the public who may not fully understand the inner-workings of government.
• The ability to know when to advance an administration’s policies and when to go slower to provide more time for others to catch up, or for middle ground to be found. 
• The ability to exhibit political leadership — a credential easier to see in action than to define in words.

So, as we anticipate the continuation of the Biden Administration, it will be interesting to watch Ron Klain.  I suspect that, in the future, he will be included in a chapter in a new Whipple book as a chief of staff with solid credentials who performed well in the job.

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 currently run three departments – the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

Now, due to my supreme management skills, I am adding a fourth.

It is the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

It is a department which allows me to pose questions for which I have no answer.  One reason is that, in retirement, I have a lot of time on my hands.  Other than golf, I have time think about dumb stuff, including when I drive long distances, such as south to California and north back to Oregon.

So, as the new department opens for the first time, here is a list of my most recent dumb questions with no answers.

• Why do big semi-trucks at rest areas leave the area, then stop so often on the side of ramps entering the freeway?

• Who drives big trucks for Amazon?  On the drives south and north along I-5, we see more Amazon trucks than any other brand.  Are these contracted rigs or Amazon employees doing the driving?

• How do train companies keep track of their cars around the country?  And, if technology is involved in that enterprise now, how was keeping track done before technology?

• How do train companies form long trains, as well as build double-decker chains?  [No doubt major train yards are involved, but the process for putting a long train together still escapes me, even in a major yard.]

• Or, this from golf.  Why do some folks criticize my putting style – using a “claw grip” – when even Hall of Fame player Phil Mickelson has adopted my approach?

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.

That solid step occurred Saturday morning when my wife and I got the second Pfizer vaccine, a welcome development for us.

While there is no absolute assurance that we won’t contract the Covid-19 virus, the chances are good that we won’t.

Our experience with the second shot here in Riverside County, California, was much like the first in these ways:

• We traveled east about an hour and a half from our winter home in La Quinta, California, to the town of Morena Valley, the site of the our second vaccine.

• We arrived at part of Loma Linda Hospital where it was easy to park and enter the facility.

• Several Riverside County staff ushered into the hospital.  There was not a huge crowd, though a steady stream of people were ahead of and behind us.
  
• We spent a few minutes with a staff member who registered us on a computer, then were directed to a nurse who would give us the shots.

• She said was a “visiting nurse” from Florida who was out West for a couple months to give the vaccines.  She was very businesslike and friendly.

• Some of those who were on hand at the hospital were getting their first shots, though it was our second.

• After getting the shot, which was easy (from friends, I had about long needles and pain with the insertion), we were directed to a waiting area to spend the required 15 minutes of rest.  A poor staff member had the unfortunate duty to announce the passage of time every minute, so folks there would know what it was appropriate to leave.

• Our appointment was at 11:45 a.m., but we were done with everything and on the road back home by then.

It important to add that the vaccine site was very well run and the staff, to a person, were friendly and helpful.  That was true even though we learned they would oversee the giving of more than 12,000 vaccines on that Saturday.

There is a lot of media coverage these days of vaccination distribution that does not work well, including this item from yesterday’s Oregonian newspaper:

“The electronic system for booking COVID-19 vaccinations in the Portland area reached its boiling point this week — not only for many thousands of embittered seniors who tried unsuccessfully for hours to schedule appointments on a slow-moving and glitchy website, but for state leaders who finally took notice.

“Friday, a day after area residents made 400,000 attempts to book just 3,400 appointments, the state finally made a change in the booking system, which officials hoped would work better.”’

Unfortunately, there is not much media coverage of distribution processes that work effectively such as the two we experienced here and the one at State Fairgrounds in our official residence, Salem, Oregon.

For us, everything worked well for our first and second shots here in California, though I’m glad we didn’t have to venture farther west to Los Angeles where, no doubt, we would have encountered huge crowds.

And, so far at least, the other good news for us is that we have not had any side effects.

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.

It used to be that, when a new quarterly state government revenue forecast was in the offing, the State Capitol would be filled with interested observers to hear the results.

As a state lobbyist, I was one of them on many occasions.

Earlier this week, a new revenue forecast was unveiled and it appeared to gain only scant attention from the media or the public.  And, of course in retirement, I was not there, though I did recent a few of the media stories.

One reason for the lack of attention was the pandemic, which has made the Legislature a “virtual one” and has prompted various public policy issues – like a revenue forecast — to recede into the background.

Another reason for the murky status is that state budget officials are waiting to see if President Joe Biden and Congress will produce another virus relief bill, which is likely to include at some additional state revenue.

Therefore, what has lost in the shuffle over the last few days is an issue that has been the source of aggressive political pushing and pulling over the years.  It’s called “the kicker.”

This law is controversial, especially to many Democrats who want more money for state programs.

The “kicker” law has been in place since 1979 when it was passed by the Oregon Legislature.

This limitation is applied separately to corporate income tax revenue, the sum of personal income tax revenue, and all other General Fund revenue.   Specifically, if revenues from the corporate income tax exceed their forecast by more than 2 per cent, then all revenue in excess of the forecast is refunded to corporations.  

Similarly, if revenues from all other General Fund sources exceed their forecast, the total excess is refunded to individual taxpayers.

The rationale – back in 1979 and even today — is that the money, though perhaps in state government coffers, still “belongs to taxpayers,” the people or corporations that paid taxes.  So, it should be returned to those payers..

Advocates for larger government do have points in their favor.  Rather than sending money back to payers, they want to invest it in such programs as education, health care and public safety, all of which have strong advocates.

The Oregon newspaper reported this additional information earlier this week:

“Oregon taxpayers are on track to get a ‘kicker’ tax rebate worth a combined $570.5 million next year, state economists told lawmakers in the latest quarterly forecast on Wednesday.

“That is the upshot of aggregate incomes in the state exceeding economists’ expectations well before the pandemic, as lawmakers assembled the current state budget.

“State economist Mark McMullen told lawmakers ‘this massive helicopter drop of a massive amount of federal aid’ also played a key role in raising incomes, through stimulus payments to individuals and enhanced unemployment benefits.  Absent that federal aid, Oregonians’ aggregate income would essentially be flat.

 “We haven’t seen this in decades, this level of income support coming from the federal government.”

If the kicker “kicks,” taxpayers would receive the personal income tax rebate as a credit on their 2021 taxes when they file next year.

The Oregonian coverage emphasized the traditional mixed response among state officials.

Governor Kate Brown, for her part, urged caution on the state spending until lawmakers know how much money Oregon will receive from a likely third federal virus relief package.  Plus, another quarterly revenue forecast is due in May, so there will be one more estimated on tax revenue before policymakers in Salem have to approve the 2021-23 state budget.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said the Legislature should increase spending to help Oregonians still experiencing “economic pain on the ground” from COVID-related job losses and the historic 2020 wildfires.

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, advocated a different point.  She said lawmakers should take a fiscally conservative approach to the budget and avoid increasing taxes on businesses.

“Given the state’s fragile economy, we must exercise fiscal discipline, not increase taxes or grow government programs and bureaucracy,” Drazan said. “We must focus our attention on getting the 150,000 Oregonians who have lost their jobs back to work and struggling small businesses back on their feet.”

So, as huge public policy issues confront state government – the virus, wildfire relief, health care policy, forest management practices and others – lawmakers also will face a typical battle over the kicker.

I understand both sides of the debate and, in fact, lobbied over my years in the business for increased spending on health care, education, maritime policy and technology, as well as restraint on overall state spending.

On the latter point, the kicker law is one protection against continued growth in state spending.

For me, the good news now is that I can watch the debate this time around from the cheap seats in Salem.

And, if I was to be involve ed in the debate, I would try to find middle ground, as I often like to do.  I would suggest that policymakers reach this agreement:  Direct the kicker money to reserve funds where it can grow so the state is able to turn to the reserves to cushion the blow the next time a recession looms.

Is this idea original with me?  No.  But, it is a good idea that represents solid middle ground.

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.

As my wife and I prepare for our second virus shot (due tomorrow, Friday, if the schedule holds), it is important to understand what’s in store for us and every other American, not to mention citizens of the world.

It is this:  Vaccinations will reduce incidence of the virus, not eradicate it.

So, is it worth taking?  For us, the answer is an easy yes.

This came to mind as I read a New York Times article, which said this:

“Ten years ago, a deadly infectious disease killed more than 36,000 Americans.  The next year, it killed more than 12,000.  And over each of the following eight years, the same disease caused be6ween 22,000 and 62,000 deaths.

“That disease is influenza – also known as the flu – and it ranks among the leading causes of deaths in the United States.

“Talking about the effects of a typical flu is somewhat fraught these days.  We are living with the worst pandemic in a century, one that is of a different magnitude from influenza.  In the early months of Covid-19, some people who were trying to deny its severity, including Donald Trump, claimed that it was barely worse than the flu.

“That’s false.

“In the coming months, Covid will probably will recede, as a result of vaccinations and immunity.  But it will not disappear.

“Some people have gotten the idea that we’re going to get to ‘Covid zero.  That’s not realistic.  It’s a fantasy.”

A reasonable goal, the NY Times suggests, is to make the virus manageable, much like the flu.  Fortunately, vaccines are doing that

As the NY Times put it:

“The vaccines will not produce Covid zero.  But they are on pace to produce something that looks like normalcy,” even if, on occasion, anti-vaxxers wax prolific in citing vaccine risks.

So, for my wife and me, we plan to ignore the risks.  bring on the second shot!

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 I reflect on my career as a lobbyist here in Oregon, I am glad it’s over.

I had a good 25-year run, but, in retirement, I have taken a look at what it means to operate with a “virtual legislature,” which is now under way during the pandemic. 
Not pretty or effective.

For me, if I was still lobbying, the major difference is that I would miss the chance to contact lawmakers individually to share perspectives from my clients.  And the lawmakers would miss the chance to engage on issues.

In a regular legislative session, I would talk to each of the 90 legislators – 30 in the Senate and 60 in the Senate – at least once, if not many more times.  Some more than others, but, still, all 90.

That personal touch makes lobbying in a state capitol like Salem much different than in Washington, D.C. where there are 500+ Members of Congress and more staff than you can count.  However, it’s important to note that, in D.C., you do rely heavily on that staff rather than being able to meet, most of the time, with individual representatives or senators.

All of this came to mind over the last couple days as I began to prepare for a Senate Rules Committee hearing in Salem on February 25 when four bills advocated by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission will be up for consideration.  I currently serve as the vie-chair of the Commission, so I will be testifying….remotely.

Virtual meetings such as the Senate Rules Commission hearing are handled under a State of Oregon contract with Microsoft Teams.  At the moment, it is how all hearings are handled, though it is possible that, down the road, an on-site legislature could return.

Here is a quick summary of how the virtual hearing will work.

• In advance of the hearing, names and addresses of those seeking to testify will be transmitted to the committee administrator.

• Just in advance of the start of the hearing, those testifying will be allowed to go live with Microsoft Teams.

• Before taking a turn to testify, all of those on the witness list will be asked to leave their systems on mute, which means they can watch and not talk.

• Then, of course, when called upon by the committee chair, those who tesify will go off mute and be allowed to speak.

• Don’t yet know how the question-answer part of most hearings will work.

• When done delivering comments or answering questions, those testifying are advised to go back on mute and listen/watch the rest of the hearing.

In this context, there will be no ability to meet individually with legislators to convey information about the Ethics Commission bills.  Testimony will have to suffice unless phone calls or texts are possible.

Legislators themselves, of course, will be outside the Capitol, as well, though there was one case last week where a Salem legislator, whose home was without power, ventured to his office at the Capitol to hold a virtual hearing.

That’s just the way it is.

But, based on my 25 years as a lobbyist, I believe texture and substance will be lost in the virtual approach.

So, I hope that, when the pandemic eases, all of us can get back to regular legislative business in Oregon, with the benefits of personal contact between legislators and those they represent.  Democracy is better for the personal contact.

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.

This blog was almost too easy to write. 

Texas Senator Ted Cruz made himself into an easy mark.  And, guess what?  Even I could hit it.

If there is any justice in politics, Cruz won’t survive his latest escapade.

Talk about hypocrisy.

His trip to Cancun while his state, Texas, suffered through an historical cold snap, including the lack of drinkable water supplies, takes the cake.

What he chose to do is beyond the pale.  Plus, he blamed his family when it became known that he had left the state during an emergency.

Here’s the way The Atlantic Magazine put it to indicate that Cruz is more than a hypocrite:

“Nero fiddled while Rome burned; Ted Cruz jetted to Cancún. And although the emperor was at least ensconced in a lavish, louche palace, the senator from Texas was stuck in economy class with the peasantry.

“Cruz’s appeal as a politician, such as it is, has never been about being lovable or relatable, but the latest incident is embarrassing even by his standards.  He was spotted on a flight to Mexico, amid a catastrophic storm that has left Texans without power, heat, and sometimes water, huddled in freezing homes and community centers as the state’s electrical grid verges on collapse.

“More than a dozen of his constituents have already died. Cruz is headed home today—if not necessarily chastened, at least eager to control the damage.  In a statement, he said he took the trip at his daughters’ behest.  Blaming your children is a curious tack for an embattled politician, but he doesn’t have much else to work with.

“The pile-on was nearly as fierce as the storm. A Cruz tweet from December resurfaced in which he lambasted the mayor of Austin, a Democrat, for flying to Cabo San Lucas during coronavirus stay-at-home orders. ‘Hypocrites. Complete and utter hypocrites.’

“It is tempting to turn the ‘hypocrite’ label on Cruz, but his sin is worse.  Every politician is a hypocrite at some point.  Cruz’s error is not that he was shirking a duty he knew he should have been performing.  It’s that he couldn’t think of any way he could use his power as a U.S. senator to help Texans in need.  That’s a failure of imagination and of political ideology.”

To illustrate his duplicity, Cruz, in the past, tried to make political points by going after other politicians who had made serious mistakes during the pandemic.

One of those was California Governor Gavin Newsom, who went to a resort for dinner in wine country.  He is still paying a political price for the action.  One assumes that Cruz now won’t mention Newsom again.

Playing the villain is nothing new to Cruz.  In 2013, he helped shut down the government, and the next year, in the weeks before Christmas, he attempted a repeat performance, forcing the Senate into a rare weekend session that recalled all its members — furious with Cruz — back to Washington.

So, going after Cruz was more than I could resist.  He is the archetype of the worst political actor – a hypocrite guilty of rank duplicity.

Again an easy mark.  So I hit it.

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.

Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty put it very well in a column she wrote yesterday:

“That a reality-show president has been replaced by one grounded in reality was apparent Tuesday night, when President Biden had his first extended conversation with average Americans since his election.

“’I don’t want to overpromise anything here,’ Biden said, speaking frankly about vaccinations, Covid relief and more.”

In an understatement, Tumulty said the scene represented a clear conflict with Donald Trump.

“It was quite a contrast from last March when, as the U.S. coronavirus death toll rose toward 600, then-president Trump blithely promised that happier times were just around the corner.

“I think Easter Sunday, and you’ll have packed churches all over our country. I think it would be a beautiful time. And it’s just about the timeline that I think is right,” Trump declared, mentioning a holiday that was less than three weeks away.”

That “timeline” turned out to be a fantasy, Tumulty wrote. The pandemic went on to kill nearly 490,000 Americans and disrupt almost every aspect of everyday life for almost a year, which ought to be accounted to Trump’s legacy.

Biden’s choice to be in Wisconsin was intentional.  It was a state he won by only about 20,000 votes.  His main goal was to make a pitch for his $1.9 trillion economic relief package, which does not appear to be picking up Republican support on Capitol Hill, though it is broadly popular with the public and among GOP mayors and governors.

In other appeals to the idea of bi-partisans action, plus talking honestly with Americans, which has marked Biden’s long career in public service, Tulmulty wrote:

• Biden also signaled, no doubt to the disappointment of more liberal Democrats, that he would be willing to scale back some parts of his plan.  For instance, the president told a worried small-business owner that concerns about Biden’s proposal to boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour were “totally legitimate,” and he said he might be willing to graduallyphase in an increase.
• Even as the president pointed to brighter days ahead, he sought to temper expectations as to how fast the country can get there.
• How soon will every American who wants one be able to get a vaccine?  Enough will be available “by the end of July,” Biden said.  But he made no guarantees that a distribution system would be in place by then to deliver those shots.
• How soon before schools reopen for in-person classes five days a week?  For kindergarten through eighth grade, by the end of April,he said, but cautioned, “It’s going to be harder to open up the high schools.”
• And when will things feel normal again?  “By next Christmas, I think we’ll be in a very different circumstance, God willing, than we are today,” the president said.

Normalcy appears to have returned, at least in the Oval Office.  There, as well as on the road, Biden talks truth. Instead of Trump’s denialism, we have a president who promises, “I will always level with you.”  A narcissist in chief has been replaced by someone to whom empathy comes naturally.

Tumulty closes:  “Biden appears to understand that the country cannot move forward until it puts Trump in the rearview mirror.”

Agreed as I counsel myself to look backward if only because I want to see Trump.

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 good news is that two golf tournaments in La Quinta, California – the American Express PGA tournament and the Prestige College Tournament – have been held despite the pandemic.

The AmEx went off without a hitch a couple weeks ago, though the normal three-day pro-am was scratched.  That meant pros played all four days without amateurs in their groups, a distinct change from the recent past.

As for the Prestige, it is under way on the Greg Normal Course at PGA West where Pepperdine leads after two rounds heading into today’s final.  Despite the pandemic, the tournament enjoys the largest field in the tourney’s history, including both the University of Oregon and Oregon State University.

Three weeks ago, Prestige tournament director Cy Williams was convinced the Prestige men’s college golf tournament would be played in La Quinta this week despite continuing restrictions in the state because of COVID- 19.  But he wasn’t sure about the field, including his own team, the University of California at Davis.

“Honestly,” he told the Desert Sun newspaper, “I thought the toughest part of this was, it’s not politics, but just all of the procedures going on with our county and our university.  We had to follow the protocols of the county, and then of course intertwined with that is the protocols of our university.  The fact that we were hosting in a different place really made it complicated.”

Despite the restrictions from the state, the University of California system and two counties in California, the Prestige was held, as well as featured the largest field in its history.

Five of the top nine teams in the most recent GolfWeek team rankings were entered, led by No. 2 San Diego State and No. 4 Arizona, along with No. 6 Arizona State, No. 8 Pepperdine and No. 9 SMU.

Navigating his own university’s restrictions was one thing, but Williams also had to oversee the challenge to collect testing data from the schools in the tournament.  He also had to understand how the tournament would work at PGA West, which just three weeks ago hosted the PGA Tour’s American Express tournament, though that was on different courses at the large La Quinta facility.

‘”Brian Hughes, the head pro at the Norman Course, sent us in December what the policies and procedures would be,” Williams said. “Golf was open. We sent them to the coaches and said, ‘Hey, this is how it is going to be. There aren’t going to be any rakes in the bunkers, you aren’t touching the flag.’ Everyone was fine. Everybody just wants to play golf.”

Speaking of Brian Hughes, I remember him from the past.  He was a good golfer in Oregon, and, with son Eric, played in the first USGA Mid-Amateur field Eric made in Connecticut.  Not only for the Prestige, but Brian has done a good job overall at the Greg Norman Course, which I say having played there a number of times.

More from the Desert Sun:  “Other changes for the Prestige were the elimination of a college-am tournament and a junior golf clinic the day before the event began.  Even the event’s traditional outdoor buffet has been replaced by packaged meals that can be taken to outdoor patios.

For Mark Weissman, founder and tournament director of the event, the key was working with Riverside County.

“From my vantage point and understanding, all the other events (like the American Express) had approval not only from their own tours but also the county was very pivotal,” Weissman said.  “For me, it was always important to talk to the county, and I think everyone agreed with that.”

Back to the American Express pro tournament.  Without a three-day pro am, the tournament exited from La Quinta Golf and County Club and used two other venues at PGA West – the Nicklaus Private and the Stadium Course.  There were no spectators.  Si Woo Kim won the event, his third win on the PGA tour.

As for me, I had been signed up to function as a walking scorer at La Quinta, but when the tournament was limited to pros only, I was excused from volunteering with the La Quinta course no longer in the rotation.  However, I am signed up to serve again next when, everyone hopes, the pandemic will be behind us – both for the PGA Tour and for college golf.