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 will not be a startling thought to suggest that, with impeachment in the rear-view mirror, it is time now to move on to other important public policy issues facing this country

Such as:

• Designing a coronavirus relief package that will address both U.S. health status and economic growth.

• Proposing an infrastructure package that can produce jobs.

• Looking at ways to build on the Affordable Care Act to provide health insurance coverage for more Americans.

• Dealing with racial equity issues in America.

• Completing Senate confirmation of the Biden Cabinet.

Last weekend, Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff to Barack Obama, as well as former mayor of Chicago, went on TV to utter solid thoughts about potential bi-partisanship actions.  He followed up in a Wall Street Journal piece with these thoughts:

“Biden can’t ignore the political risk of steamrolling the GOP.  A majority of Americans (especially independents) want him to follow through on his promise to work across the aisle.  If ‘build back better’ is the north star for this administration, Biden will need Republicans who vote against the relief package to work with him on climate, infrastructure, education and more.

“…because it appears that the minimum wage hike won’t pass as part of the relief package, he (Biden) can pair the priority with small-business reforms Republicans have long championed.  The last time Democrats raised the federal minimum wage in 2007, they won Republican acquiescence by adding tax cuts targeted to small businesses.  That bill passed the Senate 80-14, and Biden can follow the same model.”

As Rahm emphasizes, even if the virus relief bill passes “as a Biden bill,” there are many more opportunities for Biden to do what Biden does best, which is to lead in the effort to find middle ground.

It can be tempting to continue giving the Senate impeachment vote an autopsy.  Surely there was a grave Republican capitulation to former president Donald Trump.  Surely the votes in favor of Trump will resonate in history, even as Trump himself, I hope, will see his influence wane.

But, for government to work effectively, Democrats and Republicans will have to find a way to collaborate for the future rather than just to focus on the past.

Washington Post writer Dan Balz, one of the best and most experienced analysts in the media today, wrote about bi-partisanship in a column a week or so ago. His work appeared under this headline:

LESSONS BIDEN LEARNED AS VICE PRESIDENT SHAPE HIS DECISIONS ON HIS COVID RELIEF PACKAGE

“There is a good reason why Biden is pushing ahead with his virus recovery plan,” Balz wrote, “despite the absence of Republican support.  It is based on his experience as vice president during a previous economic downturn during the administration of President Barack Obama.

“What Republicans are proposing as a counter to Biden is not big enough to deal with the problems Biden sees.  He doesn’t want to go small, given the deep problems of the virus, on theory that there will be political will later to add to an initial effort.”

So, I say pass the virus bill, get the country moving again, and move on to bi-partisan actions based on leadership from the country’s chief executive and participation by smart operatives in Congress (and, yes, there are some left).

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.

Almost done with impeachment commentary.

Note the word “almost.”

There is “almost” no way to describe the final vote in the Senate where most Republicans decided to acquit Donald Trump.

But I will say this:

The impeachment process will stand in history as a clear indictment of Trump and his abhorrent conduct.  He escaped.  He was not exonerated.

Most Republicans refused to cross the demagogue who appears still to rule the party.

To be sure, seven Republicans voted to convict Trump and I call their decision “votes of conscience.”

Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank, put it this way in his report about the impeachment vote:

The vote to acquit Trump was a “craven surrender to the political imperative not to cross the demagogue.  But the impeachment trial was not in vain, for it revealed the ugly truth:  Trump knew lawmakers’ lives were in danger from his violent supporters, and instead of helping the people’s representatives escape harm, Trump scoffed.

“When the yeas and nays were counted, seven Senate Republicans voted along with all 50 Democrats to convict Trump.  The other 43 Republicans, some of whom, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, feebly denounced Trump’s conduct even as they acquitted him, now have the cowardly distinction of licking the boots of the man who left them to die.”

And from the New York Times, this:

Given this unfortunate, though predictable, result in the U.S. Senate, it is now time to move on to other issues and hope Trump ends up in two places – (a) in state courts where he would have to defend himself and his fading empire, and (B) in the ash bin of history.

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.

Here I go again writing about impeachment when I sit in the California desert far from the action.

But I have a TV, so I watch the historical process unfold in the nation’s Capitol – the second impeachment trial of the same president of the United States.

If there is a bottom-line question in the trial of former president Donald Trump, it is this:

What did he do after he knew a mob of “his people” had invaded the U.S. Capitol?

The answer?  Nothing.

• He let the riot go on without any effective social media intervention. 

• He did not use the regular news media to ask “his people” to stand down.

• He did not head down to the Capitol to instruct the rioters to stop.

• He did not call for reinforcements – including the National Guard — to defend the Capitol.

• He left his vice president, Mike Pence, open to attack and anger, only steps and seconds from being accosted by “his mob.”

So, if there are questions about what he did before the riot, if there is disagreement about the words he used to tell “his people” to fight (just normal political speech, his lawyers contended), if there is a question about his First Amendment right to speak, so be it.

But there is no question about what he did after the insurrection started.  Nothing.

Several Republican senators — Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – asked Trump lawyers about this in yesterday’s proceedings.  And each of these senators said they were unsatisfied with the answers.

That’s likely because there were no answers.

Consider what the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post wrote this morning.

From the Journal:  “Instead of bowing to dozens of court defeats, Trump escalated.  He falsely claimed that Vice President Mike Pence, if only he had the courage, could reject electoral votes and stop Democrats from hijacking democracy.  He called his supporters to attend a rally on Jan. 6, when Congress would do the counting. ‘Be there, will be wild!’  Trump tweeted.  His speech that day was timed to coincide with the action in the Capitol, and then he directed the crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Now his legacy will be forever stained by this violence, and by his betrayal of his supporters in refusing to tell them the truth.  Whatever the result of the impeachment trial, Republicans should remember the betrayal if Trump decides to run again in 2024.”

From the Post:  “It wasn’t a defense. Not in any serious factual, legal, or logical sense.

“What former president Donald Trump’s lawyers offered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Friday was an attack — a misleading, distortive, gas-lighting, repetitive, irrelevant and, at times, absurd although mercifully brief — attack.  It was an attack on the House impeachment managers, on Democrats, on the impeachment process. It was an attack on everything but the evidence against Trump.  It was a disgrace, like the man it failed to defend.”

I hope Trump’s actions and inactions will land indelibly in the hearts and minds of Americans.

It appears Trump won’t be convicted in the Senate, but I join the Wall Street Journal to say, “let his legacy be forever stained.”

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 was a powerful moment in the final day of the House managers’ impeachment prosecution of former president Donald Trump. 

At the Senate podium, California Representative Ted Lieu said this in response to contentions from defense lawyers that Trump would run again and win: 

“I’m afraid he’s going to run again and lose.  Because he would do this (inciting a riot) again.”

As I watched the impeachment process yesterday, I was left with a  further chilling thought.

Violence comes naturally to Trump and his sycophants.  They will continue to engage in it, matter what happens in the impeachment vote.

Videos displayed by House impeachment managers showed clearly that some citizens of this country have no problem resorting to violence, even actions which violate criminal codes.

As with Trump, their leader, violence is their way of getting their way, no matter the consequences. 

Senate Republicans ought to consider this realty as, in a few days, they vote. 

Still, I contend it is better to convict Trump than to let him continuing to get away with violence – again. 

Washington Post opinion writer, Dana Milbank, wrote about this in a column that appeared this morning under this headline:

Opinion: If Republican senators acquit Trump, they will own the violence that follows

Here are excerpts of what he wrote:

“House impeachment managers closed their prosecution Thursday with a warning to Republican senators:  If they vote to acquit former president Donald Trump, the blood will be on their hands when he unleashes political carnage again.

“’When’ is the proper word, for, given Trump’s long pattern of inciting violent threats and actions, the next brutal outburst is not a question of ‘if.’

“’If we don’t draw the line here, what’s next?’ Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, asked the senators.  ‘Is there any political leader in this room who believes that, if he is ever allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way?  If he gets back into office and it happens again, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Milbank wrote that it has been five years since Trump marveled at his own ability to incite.  “I bring rage out,” he told The Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.  “I always have.”  

More from Milbank.

“Encouraging violence at his campaign rallies (‘knock the crap out of them,’  ‘I will pay for the legal fees.’) Calling the sucker-punch of a demonstrator ‘very, very appropriate’ and something we need ‘more of.’  Calling the Republican candidate who assaulted a journalist ‘my kind of guy.’  Saying there were ‘very fine people’ among the neo-Nazis who marched, with lethal violence, in Charlottesville.

“Defending the armed militia members who stormed the Michigan Capitol and threatened to kill the governor.  Re-tweeting the guy who said ‘the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat’ and who later warned that ‘there’s going to be blood running out of that [Capitol] building.’  Celebrating his supporters who tried to run a Biden campaign bus off a highway.  Whipping up fury at public officials such as the Georgia secretary of state, resulting in death threats.

“Those are just a few mileposts in Trump’s marathon of incitement, culminating in his invaders’ January 6 attack, and his refusal for hours to do anything to call off the riot as it unfolded, or to send help to besieged lawmakers and overwhelmed police.

“Republican senators surely have to know Trump is guilty of inciting the bloody coup attempt.  Trump-boosting Senator Tommy Tuberville confided to reporters this week that he had told Trump by phone, in real time, that Vice President Mike Pence was being evacuated (a few steps ahead of would-be assassins, it turned out), even as Trump was attacking Pence on Twitter.

“If they vote to acquit, Republican senators will be inviting Trump to try to retake the White House with even more violence.  How many more will die because of it?”

But, I think Milbank’s analysis, good as it is, does not go far enough.  It does not mention the further reality I cited above.  No matter what happens in the impeachment trial, Trump will foment violence and those who follow his orders won’t care if he is no longer president.  They’ll be violent.

Chilling?  Yes.

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.

Revulsion

Definition:  a strong feeling of repugnance, distaste, or dislike

Horrific

Definition:  Causing horror

Criminal

Definition:  Guilty of crime

Those three words – revulsion, horrific, criminal – raced through my mind yesterday as I watched day 2 of the impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump.  No doubt you could find more words to describe the carnage of the riot Trump ordered and fomented.  But those above will do…for now.

If you listened closely to House of Representatives managers in the Senate, there was only one conclusion:  Trump is guilty.

If the proceeding would have been in a court of law and I was on the jury, I would convict Trump in a second.  What I saw and heard in the presentation was almost too much believe for someone – me – who has been involved in government for more than 40 years.  Disagreement is one thing.  Intentional insurrection is another.

Retired Senator Claire McCaskill put it very well the other day when she said that there comes a time for all elected officials to decide issues that could adversely affect their next election.  That, she said, is a time to vote your conscience.

I hope senators will vote their conscience a few days from now.  And, if they do, that means conviction of Trump, regardless of how it affects their own election prospects.

Consider these perceptions from David Frum, writing in The Atlantic Magazine:

“The rioters came just 58 steps away from fleeing senators, and within feet of the hiding vice president.  Today’s Senate impeachment proceedings told horror stories—and detailed just how close of a call the January 6 attack truly was.

“Up until now, the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump has mostly been a big procedural squabble.  But today, grainy security footage offered a visceral reminder of the stakes at hand.

“There is no defense—only complicity.  The remorseless, crushing power of the House managers’ evidence, all backed by horrifying real-time audio and video recordings, shuttered any good-faith defense of Trump on the merits of the case.”

Or these from Washington Post writer Dana Milbank:

“Trump’s apologists seem willing to excuse just about anything, even though the impeachment managers are laying out in minute detail the damning evidence showing how the former president conceived, organized, fomented and refused to call off the murderous invasion of the Capitol by his supporters.  Republican senators seem not to care how close the insurrectionists came to assassinating Vice President Mike Pence (who we now know was hiding in the Capitol the entire time of the attack) and killing or taking hostage senators and members of the House.”

Pictures of the hanging noose near the Capitol steps left an indelible picture of what Trump’s rioters wanted to do to Vice President Mike Pence.  And they came close to succeeding, perhaps only feet from him.

Still, I am still not certain whether the dramatic and effective House manager presentation will change many Republican votes in the Senate.  Perhaps some, but not enough to convict. 

Pro-Trump observer, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, summarized the situation – I think accurately — when he told Wall Street Journal late yesterday:

“The footage is horrific.  They (the House managers) spent a great deal of time focusing on the horrific acts of violence that were played out by the criminals, but the language from the president doesn’t come close to meeting the legal standard for incitement.”

On the other hand, lead House manager, Maryland Representative Jami Raskin, put it very well when he said, “if what Trump did does not amount to an impeachable offense, then nothing does.”

Revulsion.  Horrific.  Criminal.

Yes.

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 question in the headline is hard to answer, especially as the impeachment trial looms in the U.S. Senate in only a few hours.

Over the past couple weeks, we have witnessed two actions by supposed Republican leaders in Congress – they considered removing Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney from a leadership position for her vote to impeach Trump, and they left Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in place on House committees to continue her diatribe against all things true and honest.

One possible answer is that Republicans are not thinking.

Another is that they are expressing fealty to the worst president in U.S. history, Donald Trump, who, to some in the party, still appears to be the leader of it.

Or, perhaps House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is trying to play both sides against the middle, and, thus, retain his leadership position – if you can call what he does leading.  He bows to the far right by supporting Greene, while saying he wants a big tent by not removing Cheney.

That’s called having it both ways.

By the way, I could often make the same claims about Democrats – they weren’t thinking or wanted to have it both ways.

The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson dealt with this when he wrote:

“On the morning of February 3, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy sat in the Capitol Rotunda for a service honoring fallen U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died during the January 6 attack by domestic terrorists.

“On the evening of February 3, McCarthy asserted that the big tent of the Republican Party should include those who have advocated political violence.

“All in a day’s work for the United States’ most disgraceful political leader.

“The Republican legislator whom McCarthy has tried to shield from the consequences of sedition, Greene from Georgia, said in 2019 that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ‘guilty of treason . . . a crime punishable by death.’

“She endorsed the view that Pelosi might be quickly removed by ‘a bullet to the head.’   She approved of the suggestion that federal law enforcement agents hostile to then-President Donald Trump should be executed.  Responding to a proposal that former president Barack Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton be murdered, Greene wrote: ‘Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient.’”

In a move that illustrated punishment for bad deeds, after Republican leaders failed to act, the all Democrats and a few Republicans in the House stripped Greene of her committee assignments.  Of course, she reacted by saying that she’d go after Democrats, who knows by what means.

I suspect these shenanigans in D.C. were not the main reason why thousands of Oregonians have left the Republican Party, but perhaps they added to the distaste for intentional dissension.

The number of party defections was first reported last week as being about 6,000, then, a couple days later, grew to 11,000.  Probably still growing.

No wonder.

A close-to-home-reason for Oregon defections likely was that the official Republican Party in the state adopted a resolution calling the attack on the U.S. Capitol a “false flag” operation.

In response, Republicans in the Oregon House of Representatives distanced themselves from the state party and no less than long-time Republican Knute Buhler, who had run for governor and Congress, dispatched his Republican credentials to the dust-bin.  He said he no longer understood what the party stood for, if anything.

If I were a Republican, I’d do the same thing.  But I have been unaffiliated for many years now and like that ability to function as an independent. 

For me, independence is better that affiliation with either Republicans or Democrats, neither of which get credit from me for interest in good government for most Americans.

Meanwhile, even as I write this, impeachment will be front and center in D.C. today.

Democrats say the process will deter future impeachable acts late in a president’s term and they hope to put Republicans on the defensive by videos showing the January 6 riots fomented, they will say, by Trump.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers contend today that deterring future presidential illegal actions is unlikely if, as expected, Trump is acquitted. 

“A greater rebuke,” they add, “would come from letting Trump suffer in isolation, without power and with the stigma of a bi-partisan House impeachment vote.”

And, so goes our excuse for politics these days.

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.

Okay, I like golf more than professional football.  That’s one reason why I write about golf on this day, the day of the Super Bowl. 

I may watch part of the game, but won’t be glued to the TV.

So on with golf.

The headline in this blog first appeared in a story in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago, so I cannot take credit for it.

But, I do agree with it.

Trump and golf shouldn’t mix.  At least not officially.

For one reason, when he has played the game, he does not abide by any rules.  No surprise there because rules don’t matter to him in any context, including politics.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal wrote about the subject:

“On the day after the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a reckless mob of President Trumpsupporters — a throng spurred on by the president himself — it might make sense that Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player could have woken up, checked out the headlines, and said to themselves, ‘You know, I ought to decline that Presidential Medal of Freedom after all.’  Accepting an honor fromthis president at this time isn’t showing respect to the office.  It’s willingly associating with a delusional leader who has done his best to dismantle our democracy.

“But the problem doesn’t lie just with Sorenstam and Player, two of golf’s all-time greats, who followed through with long-held plans to receive their honors from Trump in a private ceremon.  The problem is with golf as a whole, because the sport has entangled itself with this embattled presidentand apparently doesn’t see a way to make a clean break.”

The PGA of America may have started an official break-up when it decided not to hold its signature PGA Championship at Trump’s facility in Bedminster, New Jersey, in 2022.  Trump blanched at the move, but it was about time it occurred and it is likely that other Trump venues will be excluded from playing rotations.

The Journal continued:

“In choosing to go to the White House, Player and Sorenstam — natives of South Africa and Sweden, respectively — missed their chance to say, ‘Enough is enough.’

“Of all the traits golf purports to teach, honor is foremost among them.  Golfers honor the rules, whether anyone is watching them or not.  They honor their competitors by honestly recording their scores.  In a casual amateur match, there is no referee.  There is only trust that two players are reporting what happened truthfully.”

Trump has torched those traits from the highest position in the nation, not just as a weekend hacker.  This is worth noting because his tentacles are deep in the sport and it’s past time to declaw those tentacles.

Let him play his own game.  Just don’t endorse his overt and abhorrent conduct by contributing to his bottom line.

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 will be an unusual story because, if you read newspapers or watch television coverage of the vaccination roll-out, your sense is that there is nothing but problems.

To be sure, there are problems and no doubt there will be more with such a huge undertaking – vaccinating the entire population.

But my recent positive experience is worth noting.

Yesterday, my wife and I headed from our winter home in La Quinta, California, west to the town of Beaumont along I-10.  There, we were scheduled to get the first Pfizer vaccine at 9:15 a.m., an appointment I was lucky enough to book about a week ago with the help of a senior citizen center. 

Yes, I am senior citizen.

We arrived in Beaumont about an hour early and parked in a line of about 30 cars.  Before long, we started moving and, in about 10 minutes, we were parked in a school lot and heading into a building where we would receive the shots.

Inside the building, the line was not long, even with marked social distancing separations. 

All we had to do was present our identification and a copy of our e-mailed appointment confirmation.

Soon, the friendly staff summoned us to a table and, in only a matter of seconds, my wife and I received the shots.  I almost didn’t feel it, expecting something different, given what I had heard through grapevines about the size of the needle and keeping the needle in the arm long enough to deposit all of the vaccine.

But, easy. 

Then, we were told to sit for about 15 minutes to assure that we did not have any reactions.

We did not.

Overall, in about an hour, we were out of the vaccine site and headed home, with a commitment for a second dose on or about February 26.

As a former journalist, I have had questions about how many outlets cover the vaccine process.  It appears they find something wrong and then focus on that to the exclusion of cases where processes work well.

Two of the positive cases have been in Beaumont and, by many accounts, back in our hometown, Salem, Oregon.  There, Salem Health has received plaudits for running, with help from the Oregon National Guard, a site at the State Fairgrounds that has used the Pfizer vaccine to good success.

Media coverage strikes me a little like coverage of a snowstorm in Oregon.  When you see what amounts to a snapshot, you are left with impression that cars and trucks are stuck all over the place and it is snowing everywhere.  No.  It is not.  It is a snapshot.

Much the same could be said vaccine distribution.  I say reporters should take a series of snapshots, including the good and the bad, and then produce fairer accounts.

Meanwhile, regardless of media coverage, I just hope vaccine distribution processes continue unabated so we can reach herd immunity, which, I know, will take many more months.

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 has been said that there are two types of elected officials – trustees and delegates.

Trustees try to use their minds and their experience to make good decisions once they win elective office.

Delegates believe they have been elected by certain folks and, thus, should do the bidding of those folks.

Of course, these definitions are generalizations.  Elected officials often act in various ways, not just one.

But one of best trustees I have known was the late Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon, now more than 35 years ago.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I had the privilege of working for Victor, including as his press secretary, so I am a biased source.

He performed very well as a trustee, not concerned about his next election prospects, bur rather about what was best for “his “ state, Oregon.

I was reminded of this the other day when one of my friends, Jim Moore, an experienced Pacific University political scholar, wrote a blog about “delegates and trustees.”

Moore’s words are worth considering.

]”In the 18th century,” he wrote, “Edmund Burke had an idea that helps us to make sense out of the roles of those in elective office.  He posited that there were two models of behavior.

“First, the elected officer could be a delegate.  A delegate’s job was to carry out the wishes of the people as well as possible.  Back in the late 1700s, this was hard to figure out at times, but, in the 21st Century, a delegate would be reliant on polling of constituents, communications from voters, and, inevitably, the waves of ideas that spill out of social media.  A delegate stayed in office as long as the will of the people was carried out.

“Second, an elected officer could be a trustee.  A trustee’s job was to use judgment to deal with political questions.  The role of the electorate was to choose the officeholder with the skills and experience to weigh issues and make political decisions that were the best for the entire polity, regardless of how that polity thought at any particular time.”

In his article, Moore went on to enunciate a proposition, with which I strongly agree.  He lauded Atiyeh as a man of principle, believing himself to be a “trustee” of the public good, not just a “delegate.”

A key principle for Atiyeh was that he didn’t work to get credit for himself for doing good things in government.  He just wanted to be involved in the good things and let credit go where it goes, with no designs on claiming it.

What Moore wrote in conclusion:  “I don’t know what the future will bring, but my strong sense is that we need people like former Governor Vic Atiyeh to stand up, on either side, and take more trustee-like positions.  Vic (whose biography is sitting on the floor of my office awaiting even more cuts until it is shorter than 450 pages) made a decision before he even ran for his first office in 1958 — he would make governing decisions without considering what it would do for his chances at re-election.

“He did not follow this 100 per cent of the time, but he did it enough that he became comfortable being an outsider in the Oregon Legislature on many, many issues.”

Just think of what it would be like if we had more “trustees” like Atiyeh in government these days.  The fact is that we, as citizens, would see better decisions.  We might not always agree with the decisions, but they’d be better, not just linked to the latest poll.

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.

Why would I feel compelled to write about impeachment from my post out West far from the action?

Well, I am a bit of a political junkie, so the subject interests me.  Plus, a lot is at stake for Americans and our system of government as we watch impeachment processes play out in Washington, D.C.

And, as with many political issues these days, I can understand both sides – those in favor of holding former president Donald Trump to account for provoking insurrection, and those not in favor of doing so because, after all, he is no longer in office as president and it’s time to focus on the new president’s priorities, the leading one of which is to control the virus.

It appears that there are not votes in the Senate to convict Trump, so it strikes me that there could be a compromise:  Censure him for his reprehensible conduct so as not to allow such conduct to escape punishment.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are moving ahead with plans to argue impeachment before the Senate.

They have sought out new cellphone footage of the January 6 Capitol insurrection, as well as updated details about injured police officers.

They want to present the Senate with fresh evidence that reveals what Trump knew in advance of the rampage at the Capitol, as well as how his words and actions influenced those who participated to lay siege to the Capitol.  

Overall, the rioting left five dead, including a Capital police officer.   In addition, two officers, one with the D.C. Police Department, died by suicide.

As reported by the Washington Post, the effort to present new video evidence and witness testimony appears designed to make Republican senators as uncomfortable as possible as they prepare to vote to acquit Trump, as most have indicated they will do.

The prospect of injured police officers describing the brutality of pro-Trump rioters to Republicans who regularly present themselves as advocates of law enforcement could make for an extraordinary, nationally televised scene.

Republican votes to acquit appear to be based on the contention that it is unconstitutional to try a former president on impeachment charges.  That spares them from having to evaluate Trump’s conduct.  

The “he’s out of office” theory is contested by many constitutional scholars, but has gained a foothold in the GOP ranks.

But, as I wrote earlier, if there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.

One person who wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal put it this way:

“If there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.  Nothing is more important in a democracy than the peaceful transfer of power.”

So, when all is said and done, it appears the most extreme punishment for Trump – conviction after impeachment – won’t occur.  I say head for censure instead and, then, get about important business in this country sans Trump.