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

I am at least two things:  A person who likes to play golf, as well as a person who follows those who play professionally.

So it was that one of my on-line golf magazines came up earlier this week with a list of top questions for those who run the professional game.  The magazine called them “burning questions,” though I have no idea what using the label “burning” means.

Forget that question. 

Here are the magazine’s questions, with comments from me in each case — which appear in italic print:

1. Is the blade putter actually dead?

A couple months after 2025 breakout star Ben Griffin called our attention to the dearth of blade putters among the PGA Tour’s putting elite, our antennae are up for signs of life going forward.

Comment:  So are mine because I never use such a putter and will not make a change to do so.

2. Will LIV get world golf ranking points?

World Ranking points would elevate LIV to a new level of acceptance from the golf establishment; given Brooks Koepka’s departure, the league’s format changes and continual questions about its future, that would be an important win.

Comment:  I could care less about LIV and wish that no golfer who accepted millions of dollars to join that “tour” should be able to return to the PGA Tour without paying a hefty fine..just as Koepka is doing.

3. What will Bryson DeChambeau do next?

The biggest winner of Brooks Koepka’s LIV departure may have been DeChambeau, whose leverage jumped from sky-high to intergalactic; as the prince of YouTube Golf, he could demand a mega-contract or take his future elsewhere.

Comment:  I also don’t care much about DeChambeau who named his price by jumping to LIV and he ought to have to live with that decision.

4. How soon is the new PGA Tour schedule coming?

This may be the biggest question of all, as the Tour is still the center of pro golf’s universe; when will Brian Rolapp (the new CEO), Tiger Woods, and the powers-that-be in Ponte Vedra release a schedule that clarifies and simplifies what it means to be a PGA Tour player, an event, and a fan?

Comment:  Here I do care because I follow professional golf.

5. Where will the LPGA Tour find its star power?

After 2024 was the Year of Nelly Korda and 2025 had a late turn from the Year of Everybody to Kinda the Year of Jeeno Thitikul, the LPGA’s new leadership has doubled down on its product; will one of these two recent No. 1s take center stage, or will the LPGA’s next star come from elsewhere?

Comment:  Again, I care because I know several potential LPGA players who are trying to make it to the major circuit.

6. Are we about to get another Grand-Slam winner?

We’re talking about Scottie Scheffler, who’s just a Shinnecock U.S. Open win away from all four — although a Jordan Spieth PGA would be something special, as would a Phil Mickelson U.S. Open, not to mention a double-major season from the likes of Xander Schauffele, Jon Rahm, Collin Morikawa, Brooks Koepka or Dustin Johnson, who each own two of them.

Comment:  Trying to become a Grand-Slam winner adds to golf watching enjoyment, at least for me.

7. What’ll be Rory McIlroy’s follow-up act?

After a year in which he completed the career Grand Slam, won at iconic courses like Pebble Beach and TPC Sawgrass, led his team to an away Ryder Cup win, won his home Irish Open, went barnstorming to India and Australia, and launched an investment fund, a production company and a golf league, what does McIlroy have in store for 2026 — and what story will his playing schedule tell us.

Comment:  Good questions.  And I wish the best for Rory, better than the over-the-top criticism he and his wife received from “fans” at the Ryder Cup in New York.

8. When — and how often — will we see Tiger Woods?

Will the now-50-year-old Woods appear as an administrator, tournament host, TGLer, Masters competitor, Champions Tour member, Golf Dad — or all of the above?

Comment:  I don’t care much about this because I believe pro golf can survive without Woods.

9. What’s up with the DP World Tour?

Everybody loves golf’s self-described “global tour,” which features some of golf’s great characters, some of golf’s great locales and some of golf’s stories tournaments.  But it’s still not crystal-clear where the DPWT slots in alongside the PGA Tour and LIV, which compete for talent, attention, money and so much more.

Comment:  Good questions.

10. Who’s next?

This was the year of Rory and Scottie but also of first-time-winners Tommy Fleetwood and Cameron Young plus late-bloomers Ben Griffin, J.J. Spaun, and Andrew Novak — so who’s next?

Comment:  Good questions.  I will be rooting for various young players including, for example, Joe Highsmith, whom I know just a bit from the golf course I play in La Quinta, California where he played while attending college on the California coast.  He won a year ago or so which gave him his tour card for two years, so now, in this year, he needs to recapture his momentum.

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

Money talks.

Even, now, in college football at the major college level.

Amateur football used to exist in colleges across the country.  Perhaps some athletes who played hoped to make it as a professional after college.  Now, they no longer have to wait; they can earn money in college.  Sometimes loads of money. 

According to Mr. Google, “stories about money in college football revolve around massive player NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals, multi-million dollar coach salaries and buyouts, and the shift from unpaid amateurs to quasi-professionals, creating a high-stakes environment where top athletes transfer for bigger paychecks and boosters essentially ‘buy’ championship rosters, leading to debates about fairness, competitive balance, and the future of the sport.”

I question the future of the game of football that I used to love to watch at the college level.  How far can money go?

Look now only to coaches’ salaries.

Kirby Smart, the head coach at Georgia, is, insofar as we know, the top wage earner with more than $13 million on an annual basis.  He is followed closely by Ryan Day at Ohio State, and recent additions like Lane Kiffin, now with LSU after bolting from Mississippi State, and Curt Cignetti from Indiana.  They get nearly as much as Smart — in the $10M-$11 million range annually. 

At University of Oregon, near where I live, head coach Dan Lanning also earns around $11 million annually after a contract extension in early 2025. 

Are these coaches worth the money?  Specifically, for example, are they worth more than the college presidents where they are employed?

I say “no,” but there are others who “yes.”  answers.  One is retired Nike CEO Phil Knight.  Every year, he plunks down big bucks to finance the pro game at the U of O, his alma mater.  [to be fair, Knight also has invested in the academic side of the school.]

On the player side, there was an interesting case a week dealing with Demond Williams, a University of Washington (U of W) quarterback who signed a contract to stay at Washington, then a couple days later backed out of that agreement to say he would be leaving school for a bigger paycheck elsewhere.

The U of W said “no” and threatened to sue Williams, so he backed off and said he would remain in school.

Here is how the Seattle Times described the background of the Williams case:

“After many long decades of playing for free, college athletes have been granted the power to monetize their days on campus.  They are now doing what any professional athlete with bankable skills does – look for a team that will pay more money and offer a better chance to win a championship.  Antique ideas like loyalty to fans or commitments to teammates outdated…”

For my part, there is far too much money at the major college level in football.  It tarnishes what we knew of the game – or at least what I thought I knew.

At the U of O, for instance, the team this year made it to the semi-finals of the college football playoff system.  But not before several major players had already opted out for what’s called the “playoff portal.”  So far, the total is about 25 departures and going higher.

For me, this makes it hard to root hard for a school when you are doing so an annual basis.

Som instead, I’ll continue to do two things:  First, I’ll watch small college football where athletes are also real students, and, second, I’ll tune in to professional football at the highest level, the NFL, not college.

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

One of my on-line golf magazines came up with a story this week under the headline I used for this blog:  “Seven of the weirdest rules in golf.”

Well, for me, the magazine forgot the rule that should be leader of the pack – Rule #12 in the official rules of golf promulgated by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and Royal and Ancient (R and A) organization in Europe.

Before listing the seven weirdos from the magazine, let me focus on Rule #12.

It deals with bunkers and, incredibly, allows this in the sand:

• Digging in with your feet to take a stance for a practice swing or the stroke.
• Smoothing the bunker to care for the course.
• Placing your clubs, equipment or other objects in the bunker (whether by throwing or setting them down).
• Measuring, marking, lifting, replacing or taking other actions under a Rule.
• Leaning on a club to rest, stay balanced or prevent a fall.
• Striking the sand in frustration or anger.

Yeah, you read that right!

It is acceptable to “strike the sand in frustration or anger.”

Beyond that piece of stupidity, it used to be that golfers had to be careful in the sand to avoid testing it before hitting a shot.  Under golf Rule #12, no longer.

When I volunteer at Oregon Golf Association events in my home state, if a rules official saw a player “strike the same in frustration or anger,” he or she would get a “code of conduct” penalty.

For my part, I cannot understand how the powerful writers at the USGA and R and A would allow Rule #12 to make it into the official rules book.

Now, on to the other seven weird golf rules, with credit to GolfWeek for this information:

1. Don’t Lose Your Head

Under the Rules of Golf, whether a stroke counts occasionally has less to do with what happened and more to do with what you intended to do.  If you start a swing intending to strike the ball and the clubhead snaps off during the downswing, tough luck.  The stroke still counts, even if you finish the motion holding nothing but the shaft.

There is, however, a narrow escape clause. If the clubhead goes rogue during the backswing and you manage to stop before the downswing begins, no stroke has occurred.  No motion toward the ball, no penalty.  A small mercy from the “golf gods” indeed.

2. Spit Happens (But Not Here)

Long before launch monitors and slow-motion replays, hustlers like the legendary Titanic Thompson discovered that a little lubrication on the clubface could dramatically change how the ball behaved.

Today, the Rules of Golf are far less forgiving.  You’re not allowed to apply any substance to your clubface if it could influence the ball flight, including sunscreen, lip balm, Vaseline, and yes, spit.

Naturally occurring moisture like rain, morning dew, tears from a triple-bogey—all fine. But deliberate dampening? That’s cheating, plain and simple.

 3. A Birdie of a Different Kind

At the 1998 Players Championship, Brad Fabel hit his tee shot safely onto the 17th-hole island green at TPC Sawgrass.  A victory, if only briefly.  Moments later, a seagull flew off with his golf ball and dunked it in the water.

Ridiculous?  Absolutely.  Unprecedented?  Not even close.  The Rules of Golf are well prepared for avian crime.  When an animal moves your ball, it’s considered outside interference.  So, there’s no penalty.  You simply replace the ball where you reasonably believe it was before your feathered adversary decided to get involved.

4. Moving Targets

There are moments on the golf course that make you think, “Surely that’s never happened to anyone.”  The Rules of Golf would politely disagree. Take, for example, your ball landing on a moving golf cart.

If this happens, the procedure is mercifully straightforward.  First, yell “Fore!” (hopefully you did).  Then determine the spot directly beneath where the ball came to rest (or would have) and drop within one club length, no closer to the hole.

No penalty strokes apply.

5. High Stakes

As we know, golf courses use colored stakes to define different areas of play.  But they don’t all follow the same rules.

White stakes mark out of bounds.  And because they define the edge of the course itself, they are considered boundary objects.  They are immovable and must not be repositioned, even if they interfere with your swing.

Red and yellow stakes, on the other hand, mark penalty areas.  These are treated more flexibly.  If they interfere with your stance, swing, or the process of taking relief, you’re allowed to move them, provided you don’t improve your lie or conditions affecting the stroke. 

6. Golf Rocks

The Rules of Golf include a category known as “loose impediments”—natural objects that aren’t fixed or growing, such as twigs, leaves, or stones. A player is allowed to remove loose impediments anywhere on the course, even in a penalty area, as long as the ball doesn’t move in the process.

7. A Prickly Situation

Golfers in desert regions occasionally find their balls nestled against, or lodged inside, a cactus.  At that moment, confidence fades, hands go to hips, and one question matters more than all others: “ Do I actually have to hit this?”

Under the standard Rules of Golf, a cactus is just part of the course.  Which means, strictly speaking, you are expected to play the ball as it lies.

However, many courses adopt a Local Rule that treats cacti, and other dangerous plants, as immovable obstructions or no-play zones, granting free relief.  If no Local Rule exists, you still have options.  You can declare the ball unplayable, take a one-stroke penalty, and drop at a safer spot.

Okay, on to my conclusion after the GolfWeek list. 

 The Rules of Golf can be described as too complicated for general understanding.  That’s accurate.  Rule writers should have had a crash course in how to write clearly. Even so, all of us in golf should try to know the rules and play on –

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

When the Bible talks about our responsibility as Christians to care for the poor and downtrodden, it does so with this important principle:  Don’t do what you do with an eye for getting credit for it.

Allow the credit to go to God.

Especially on this Sunday, before my wife and I head off to church here in the California desert, it is appropriate to describe giving principles from Scripture.

This principle is outlined in Matthew, chapter 6, as follows:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.  If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So, when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.  Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

Great advice.  And, of course, it is contained in the Scripture, so there is no reason to argue with it.

The chapter in Matthew goes on to contain one of the most well-known passages in Scripture, the “Lord’s Prayer.”

Here are the words, which are extremely valuable:

^“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.  Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.  Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

“This, then, is how you should pray:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

“Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

“And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

So, I say follow the prescriptions laid out in Scripture, then live a “good” live here on earth motivated by God’s grace, not your own performance, and then anticipate an eternity with God in heaven.

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

Pummeled.

Beat down.

Huge loss.

Those words may describe how University of Oregon football fans still are trying to come to grips with the Ducks loss last night.

It was a college football semi-final game and the Indiana Hoosiers drubbed the Ducks by a 56 to 22 score.

So much for the Ducks this year.

U of O Coach Dan Lanning was insightful in his comments after the game by saying two things:  First, he gave huge credit to Indiana, and, second, he his team should be evaluated on the basis of its full season, not just losing the last game.

Here’s hoping Lanning stays around Eugene, Oregon for years.

As for the Hoosiers coach, Curt Cignetti, he’ll now lead Indiana against the Miami Hurricanes in the national championship game January 19.

Cignetti, who, to me, always appears sullen on the sideline, had the following to say after Indiana won, under this headline from Yahoo Sports:  “’I am happy — at times,’ but Cignetti is all business on the Hoosiers’ sideline.

“If the broadcast cameras focused solely on Cignetti during the Rose Bowl, viewers may have thought the No. 1-ranked Hoosiers lost to No. 9 Alabama in a blowout.  Instead, the inverse was true.  Indiana obliterated the Crimson Tide, 38-3, leaving no doubt that it would advance to the College Football Playoff semi-final as the favorite to win its first national championship.  Yet, Cignetti did not crack a smile until after the game was over.

“Screenshots of Cignetti’s facial expressions circulated across the Internet throughout the Rose Bowl.  From his expressionless gaze to his looks of displeasure, the second-year Hoosiers coach never appeared satisfied with his team’s performance in a game that was never in doubt.  And that’s exactly what he wanted.

“Cignetti’s demeanor during the CFP quarterfinal rout was no one-off occurrence.  It was not some gimmick, either.  Anyone who keeps a close eye on him during games — whether it be a playoff battle or a regular-season matchup with an FCS opponent — will see the same scowl.”

Well, even before the commentators, I also noticed Cignetti’s scowl on TV before it became a national topic.

Why does he scowl?

Football is still a sport, so why doesn’t he ever have fun and show it on his face?

I wish for the fun if only because Lanning appears to have fun on the sideline – dedicated to trying to win, but also appearing to enjoy the moment.

So, I say try to win, but have fun doing so in what still is a sport.  Always scowling is bad form for a coach – read, Cignetti — even if he wins.

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

I have thought a bit about this blog headline since I started writing “Perspective from the 19^th Hole” a few years ago.

So far, I have written hundreds of them, though I took a pause late last year, but have started writing again.

On this Friday morning, as I relax a bit before heading out to the golf course, I reflect on this question:  Why do I write my blog?

There is no one word or one phrase answer, but I suggest this…

• First, I like to write, given my professional background, so it is purposeful for me to keep doing what I like to do.

• Second, I have not much else to do in retirement, so I keep writing.

• Third, commenting on golf, politics and other subjects, means I need to stay connected, at least to a degree, as I keep looking for new topics and researching those subjects (where, I add, I often rely on Mr. Google, not to mention several of past state lobbying colleagues).

• Fourth, in retirement, I am no longer involved in dealing directly with public policy issues, so the best I can do is write about them – which suits me just fine.  And, to put a point on it, if I cannot criticize the worst president in history face-to-face — Donald Trump — then I want to write about that buffoon who, as the epitome of an egotist, thinks only of himself, and not America.

• Fifth, it is a bit of release to write what I think rather than keeping it inside.

• Sixth, writing what I think to be accurate is a good antidote to all of those who use social media for their own ends, usually with honesty and accuracy a lost art.

In the years of my blog, I have not worked to cultivate a readership.  My blog is available on-line, but that’s as far as it goes – and that works for me.

So, I tell myself, with these limited ends in mind, write on.

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

Following the route of a proposed gas tax increase for Oregonians is difficult.

• One day it’s on.
• Another day it’s off because opponents gather enough signatures to get it to the ballot late this year.
• Another day it may be off, too, because Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, heading for a re-election vote next November, says she wants to pull the measure off the ballot, thus avoiding a vote on it at the same time as she is on the ballot.

Who knows what’s next?

I wrote a day or so ago that Kotek and her Democrat allies at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, might be in favor of repealing a gas tax (with other transportation funding measures) before it makes it to the ballot next November.

Well, yesterday, Kotek made it official.

Here is the way the Oregonian newspaper reported the development under this headline:  “Governor Tina Kotek calls for repeal of controversial transportation package she championed.”

“Governor Tina Kotek asked lawmakers Wednesday to repeal the controversial transportation funding package they passed along party lines with her support last fall.  At the same time, she called on legislators to take ‘emergency action’ to prevent layoffs at the state transportation agency.

“Her announcement, which she made at the Oregon Transportation Forum’s annual meeting, comes weeks after a Republican-led group challenging the tax hikes in the package submitted enough signatures to delay the scheduled increase until voters could decide on the matter in November.

“The announcement means Oregonians might no longer get to vote on a 6-cent increase to the state’s 40 cents per gallon gas tax or hikes to title and registration fees in November.  It also means voters may not get to decide whether to temporarily double the state’s 0.1% payroll tax for transit.”

The words “might” and “may” above refer to the fact that legislators have not yet acted on repeal, though Kotek’s plea for repeal could be successful, given that her party, the Democrats, control both the House and the Senate.

From a political perspective, repeal makes sense if you are Kotek.

“Some Salem insiders had been speculating that Kotek would repeal the package and its unpopular tax hikes because they were set to appear on the same ballot as her re-election bid this fall.  A poll commissioned by the anti-tax campaign showed that the tax hikes were extremely unpopular among voters and likely to get nixed.”

Thus, it would be possible some voters would vote “no” on the tax and withhold their votes from Kotek, as well.

Beyond politics, the status leaves transportation funding – read, roads and bridges – in Oregon in a mess.

The Oregon Department of Transportation is facing a $242 million budget shortfall and that could result in laying off hundreds of employees – employees whose jobs involve repairing and re-building Oregon roads and bridges.

The Oregonian goes on to say that “decisions we make in the coming weeks will determine whether Oregon’s transportation system continues to decline or whether we can restore certainty in needed essential services that Oregonians rely on.”

Kotek now says she will lead an effort to finalize a more comprehensive transportation funding package for lawmakers to take up in the 2027 legislative session – after she stands for re-election at the polls.

So, if you are keeping track, the process calls for:

• A short legislative session in February 2026, could involve the Kotek gas tax repeal effort, as well as other budget issues.
• A primary election in the spring will indicate whether State Senator Christine Drazan, who ran and lost to Kotek last time around, will win the right to run again on the Republican side.
• In election next November Kotek will contend for re-election, most likely against Drazan.
• The next long legislative session begins in 2027 and transportation funding or the lack thereof will be a major issue again.

Then, after I wrote what appeared above, Drazan, Kotek’s likely Republican opponent, issued this statement:

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am flattered, but Tina has proven that she can’t be trusted and that the only thing she cares about is raising more taxes.  If Tina is afraid of Oregonians voting on her gas tax this November, she’s not going to like what they have to say about her leadership.  What a flop.”

For her part, Kotek says she has set stage both for economic growth in Oregon.

So, as we watch and wait, we are in, not just for questions on transportation funding in general, but also for political fighting between the two likely candidates to be Oregon’s next governor – Kotek and Drazan.

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

It was a sad day in American history.  January 6, yesterday.

One of the saddest.

A president of this country couldn’t stand to lose an election.  But he did.

Who?

Donald Trump.

When he knew he couldn’t succeed in the normal way – by winning at the ballot box – he dispatched a horde of allies to wreak havoc on the federal Capitol.

Not only would he not call them off, he egged them on.  So much so that various Capitol guards were injured.

Here is the way Atlantic Magazine editor Jeff Goldberg, wrote about the tragedy in the most recent issue:

“Trump has dismantled America’s foreign-aid infrastructure and gutted a program, built by an earlier Republican president, that saved the lives of Africans infected with HIV; he has encouraged the United States military to commit war crimes; he has instituted radical cuts to U.S. science and medical funding and abetted a crusade against vaccines; he has appointed conspiracists, alcoholics, and idiots to key positions in his administration; he has destroyed the independence of the Justice Department; he has waged pitiless war on prosecutors, FBI agents, and others who previously investigated him, his family, and his friends; he has cast near-fatal doubt on America’s willingness to fulfill its treaty obligations to its democratic allies; he has applauded Vladimir Putin for his barbarism and castigated Ukraine for its unwillingness to commit suicide; he has led racist attacks on various groups of immigrants; he has employed unusually cruel tactics in pursuit of undocumented immigrants, most of whom have committed only one crime—illegally seeking refuge in a country that they believed represented the dream of a better life.

“Those are some of the actions Trump has taken.

“Here are a few of the things he has said since returning to office:  He has referred to immigrants as “garbage”; he has called a female reporter “piggy” and other reporters “ugly,” “stupid,” “terrible,” and “nasty”; he has suggested that the murder of a Saudi journalist by his country’s government was justified; he has labeled a sitting governor “seriously retarded”; he has blamed the murder of Rob Reiner on the director’s anti-Trump politics; he has called the Democrats the party of “evil.”

Yet, Goldberg writes, “even when weighed against this stunning record of degeneracy, the pardoning by Trump of his cop-beating foot soldiers (those who fought on January 6) represents the lowest moment of this presidency so far, because it was an act not only of naked despotism but also of outlandish hypocrisy.

“By pardoning these criminals, he exposed a foundational lie of MAGA ideology:  That it stands with the police and as a guarantor of law and order.  The truth is the opposite.”

Now, we are stuck in America with three more years of Trump.

As Americans, it’s worth considering how much injustice and illegality we can stand under Trump. 

I hope we survive.

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

There is a lot of time between now and the next race for governor in Oregon – next November — but if I was the Democrat incumbent here, Tina Kotek, I’d be worried about the election.

There is at least one major reason, at least at the moment.

She will have to run at the same time as a measure will be on the ballot to enable Oregonians to decide whether they support a gas tax increase – an increase Kotek pushed through the Oregon Legislature last year, with help from her Democrat allies.

To put a point on it, some voters who oppose a gas tax increase also could oppose Kotek.

Of course, there is another option, one pointed out by a friend of mine who served in the past in the Legislature, but is now out office in retirement.

He suggested that Kotek and her friends on the D side could use the short legislative session in February to try to cut a new deal on the gas tax and other transportation funding.  One approach would be to nullify the gas tax increase so there is no vote on it in November, which would tend to benefit Kotek in her re-election race.

But, for many Democrats, just trashing the measure might not help those who want transportation funding in order to remove the prospect of huge layoffs of state employees, as well curtail investments in road repair and re-building.

The Oregonian newspaper put the status this way under this headline: Oregonians won’t see gas tax hike in January as opponents secure enough signatures to send issue to ballot

More from the state government reporter Carlos Fuentes:

“The Republican-led group attempting to halt a scheduled increase to Oregon’s transportation taxes has officially submitted enough required signatures to allow voters the final say next November.

“The Secretary of State’s Office announced that it had so far verified 163,451 signatures of the 194,000 submitted by the campaign earlier this month, meaning the organizers far exceeded the roughly 78,000 signatures required.  

The news means Oregonians will no longer see a 6-cent increase to the state’s 40 cents per gallon gas tax or hikes to title and registration fees in January.  It also means the state’s 0.1 per cent payroll tax for transit will not temporarily double as it was set to do.

More from the Oregonian:

“The petitioners’ successful effort marks a major loss for Democrats, who spent much of the year trying to craft a package that would increase funding for the state transportation agency, local governments, and public transit districts.

“After a series of missteps, Democrats approved a plan in a special legislative session this fall that would have raised taxes to a much smaller extent than they initially proposed.”

Still, it was a tax (and fee) increase.

It then fell to Senate Republican Leader Bruce Starr of Dundee and House Representative Ed Diehl of Scio to launch a drive to collect signatures to reach the ballot by “initiative petition.”

It is a bit of a surprise that Starr and Dundee, plus their allies, were able to succeed so quickly.  Normally, getting to the ballot requires loads of money to pay staff to collect signatures.  Volunteer effort rarely works.

This time it did.

Back to politics in the governor’s race.

There is no question but that taxes will be an issue for voters, even if the gas follows by the wayside. 

The likely Republican candidate, Senator Christine Drazan can be expected to pound Kotek as a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat out-of-tune with many Oregonians.

For her part, Kotek will make the case that she has set in motion a full-blown recovery funding for the entire state, which, given some factors statewide, may be a difficult case to make. 

Here is how Oregon Public Broadcasting put it:

Under Kotek’s leadership, “the state has reported high housing costs, dismal school rankings and rising unemployment.  Kotek is pitching herself as the right candidate to stand up to Trump, and contends Oregon is on the cusp of progress if they continue following her lead.”

So, who wins?

Well, it’s far too early to tell.  Months is an eternity in politics.  Plus, over my 40 years in and around politics in Oregon, I have learned that it is not smart to bet on political outcomes. 

Voters have a way of issuing surprising results.

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

To answer the question in this blog headline, I say this, bluntly:

I hope his future is limited by his over-reactions to almost everything.

Even January 6, 2021!  Now five years later remember that date?

The New York Times does.

Here is what the Times wrote in an editorial about that fateful day:

“That day was indeed a turning point, but not the one it first seemed to be. It was a turning point toward a version of Trump who is even more lawless than the one who governed the country in his first term. It heralded a culture of political unaccountability, in which people who violently attacked Congress and beat police officers escaped without lasting consequence.

“The politicians and pundits who had egged on the attack with their lies escaped, as well. The aftermath of January 6 made the Republican Party even more feckless, beholden to one man and willing to pervert reality to serve his interests.

“Once Trump won election again in 2024, despite his role in encouraging the riot and his many distortions about it, it emboldened him to govern in defiance of the Constitution, without regard for the truth and with malice toward those who stand up to his abuses.”

Regardless of his violent effort to overturn an election he lost, Trump nios claims to be the best U.S. president in history.  Overstatement.

I say he is the worst, given his intention, as a narcissist, to turn everything into a fable about himself, no matter the reality.

I also read a column a few days ago by Michelle Goldberg, which appeared in the Washington Post under this headline:  Trump Is Getting Weaker, and the Resistance Is Getting Stronger

I like that tone.

Here is more from the Goldberg column:

“It has been a gruesome year for those who see Donald Trump’s kakistocracy clearly.  He returned to office newly emboldened, surrounded by obsequious tech barons, seemingly in command of not just the country but also the zeitgeist.

“Since then, it’s been a parade of nightmares — armed men in balaclavas on the streets, migrants sent to a torture prison in El Salvador, corruption on a scale undreamed of by even the gaudiest third-world dictators, and the shocking capitulation by many leaders in business, law, media, and academia.

“Trying to wrap one’s mind around the scale of civic destruction wrought in just 11 months stretches the limits of the imagination, like conceptualizing light-years or black holes.”

Yet, Goldberg says that, as 2025 limps toward its end, there are reasons to be hopeful.

She goes on:

“That’s because of millions of people throughout the country have refused to surrender to this administration’s bullying.  When Trump began his second term, conventional wisdom held that the resistance was moribund.  

“If that was ever true, it’s certainly not anymore.  This year has seen some of the largest street protests in American history.”  And much more.

The question is whether we, as Americans, will be able to survive three more years of Trump.

Goldberg sees several pivot points in Trump’s decline:

• One of the first was a Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April.  Elon Musk, then still running rampant at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, declared the contest critical and poured more than $20 million into the race.  Voters turned out in droves, and the Musk-backed conservative candidate lost by more than 10 points.
• In June, Trump’s military parade, meant as a display of dominance, was a flop, and simultaneous No Kings protests all over the country were huge and energetic.
• A few months later, Charlie Kirk was assassinated, a tragedy that the administration sought to exploit to silence its opponents.
• Trump has thoroughly corrupted the Justice Department, but its selective prosecutions of his foes have been thwarted by judges and, more strikingly, by grand juries. Two grand juries refused to indict Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, whom the administration has accused of mortgage fraud, with no credible evidence.

So, Goldberg posits that “Trump ends the year weak and unpopular, his coalition dispirited and riven by infighting.”

Now, on this Monday, we one result Trump was seeking in Latin America – the overthrow of the despot leader in Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro.  Incredibly – and perhaps illegally – the U.S. military invaded the country and captured Maduro and his wife.  They will be arraigned in New York court today and, later, will stands trail.

Meanwhile, Trump is coming in for criticism around the world for his actions to overthrow another country’s leader.  No doubt, he, Trump, doesn’t care.

To use an old phrase, only time will tell if Trump continues to wilt. 

For my part, I hope he does so we can get back to a more genuine America where all voices can come together to create a solid melting pot.

So, can we stand three more years of Trump as we enter a new year?  Who knows?