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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 often wish I had a job suggesting names for cars, hotels and other businesses.

Who has that job anyway?

Who suggested that it would be a good idea for the car company, Mercedes Benz, to come out this year with a car called AMG?

Who decides which letters – or numbers – go well enough together to earn the right to be used? Who advised that some Acura cars should go by the initials, TSX?

Or, as I was in North Seattle over the weekend, who decided that Microsoft would be a good name for a company that has grown, in only a few short years, to be an international behemoth? Or, Apple, with a picture with a bite out of an apple, for a mark?

Or, Facebook even as we anticipate another appearance before a Congressional committee by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Without much previous experience, most observers thought Zuckerberg survived his first day yesterday with mostly flying colors, including in the performance of his company’s stock.

But, back to the name issue – Facebook works well, in part because a made-up name, Facebook, existed long enough and is popular enough to gain huge brand awareness.

I answer again, who knows how company or brand names are decided?

All of this leads me to the story about how the company I co-founded more than 25 years ago, with two partners, got its name. There was no outside research involved; we just thought about the question ourselves.

One of the partners thought a good name for our lobbying and public relations company would be “talisman.”

Here is the dictionary definition of a term that, frankly, is not used much in normal human discourse:

“Anything whose presence exercises a remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions.”

Well, I guess that definition would have worked for a company like ours. But I also thought the word conjured up some kind of magic to do our work, which could not have been farther from the on-the-ground truth.

Our role was not “to exercise remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions,” in much the same way as a magician would do. Rather, it was to work hard to represent our clients and to help them put their best foot forward.

So, with “talisman” in the rear-view mirror, at least my thoughts turned to other options.

For me, there were several:

• Pinnacle, a name that would signal our commitment to reach the top of our business for the benefit of our clients.
• Promontory, another word that would signal the same aspiration.
• Summit,
• On Target, a name that would signal our commitment to work in ways that would be “on target” with the desires and wishes of our clients.
• Or, my favorite, Cornerstone, a name that would signal that our efforts would provide a basis – the foundation cornerstone, if you will – for our clients to move forward.

What did we choose?

None of the above.

Eventually, we landed on using our own partner last names – Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick. All of us had produced, in years before our start in 1990, track records of solid performance in previous jobs.

Perhaps a bit presumptuously, we thought our good work – and our name familiarity – would work well to cement our start in a lobbying and public relations business.

It worked.

Often, the name Conkling Fiskum & McCormick (yes, I was trapped in the middle!) was shortened to CFM, initials which are still used today and which have gained notice for the quality of our work in Oregon and regionally, as well as in our federal lobbying office in Washington, D.C.

When one of the original founding partners – Pat McCormick – retired from CFM a few years ago to start a public relations form with his daughter, we retained the initials, though gave up the name McCormick.

And, in a nod to a specific commitment in our work, we added the word “strategic” to our title, which indicated that we intended to offer strategic, not just tactical, services. Strategy is a big word, connoting a commitment to establishing over-arching goals and objectives before engaging in tactics.

So, we became CFM Strategic Communications. And, for my part, I continue to like the name because it, in fact, underlines the professional perspective we take to our work.

What’s in a name? Not much on its own, but, if you use the name to build brand awareness and credibility, a name can mean a lot. For us, at CFM Strategic Communications, our name has served us well.

**********

Footnote: As the intro to this blog notes, I have retired from CFM Strategic Communications, but I retain the title “emeritus partner” and continue to participate in CFM work as an informal advisor.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The headline in this blog appeared in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor this week. It was followed by this sub-head:

The bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians.

As a former state government manager, I am not opposed to government workers in general as is the case with some on the far right, including one who wrote the letter.  Here are excerpts.

“J.T. Young’s “How to Dig Into the Deep State” (Op-Ed, March 27) is on target in tracing the dangers of an unaccountable, bloated bureaucracy to the balanced powers of the three branches of government designed by our Founders. His observations are not limited to the federal government but extend to state, county and municipal authorities, dramatically swelling the numbers and influence of unelected civil servants. Secondly, these bureaucrats largely serve with little oversight and impunity principally due to the clout of their civil-service unions.

“Finally, the bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians, who repay with overly generous benefit packages and endless backing of a greater bureaucracy. Want to guess which party is privileged by the bureaucratic state?”

I have often thought about what appears to me to an often-unholy alliance between Democrats in power – such as in the Oregon Legislature – and public employee unions that fund that power.

It works like this.

Public employee unions deduct money from worker dues to create huge political contribution funds. Then, they donate the vast majority, if not every dollar, of the funds to Democrats. Then, the Democrats in power strain to provide benefits for those who put them there.

In the extreme, this is a toxic transaction that works against reasonable, middle ground decisions in public policy.

What’s the solution?

Who knows? It is unconstitutional to bar contributions from public employee unions – it is called “free speech” – just as it is unconstitutional to bar contributions from businesses – it also is “free speech.”

My notion is that both sides – public employee unions and business – should devote their political contribution resources to helping to fund the campaigns of those who will do the best job once they win election. And, by the “best job,” I mean finding solutions in the middle, which is often where the best decisions are anyway.

Contributions should not just be based on party affiliation.

Too much to expect? Yes.

But, still there is place for positive aspirations. If there wasn’t, I would stop paying attention to politics.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The headline of this blog also was the headline in a major story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the day before Easter.

Here are excerpts from the article:

“How did this happen? How did a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world become such a dominant force in just two and a half centuries? The historical sociology of this extraordinary phenomenon has been explored by Rodney Stark of Baylor University, who argues that Christianity modeled a nobler way of life than what was on offer elsewhere in the rather brutal society of the day.

“In Christianity, women were respected as they weren’t in classical culture and played a critical role in bringing men to the faith and attracting converts. In an age of plagues, the readiness of Christians to care for all the sick, not just their own, was a factor, as was the impressive witness to faith of countless martyrs. Christianity also grew from within because Christians had larger families, a by-product of their faith’s prohibition of contraception, abortion and infanticide.

“For theologians who like to think that arguments won the day for the Christian faith, this sort of historical reconstruction is not particularly gratifying, but it makes a lot of human sense. Professor Stark’s analysis still leaves us with a question, though: How did all that modeling of a compelling, alternative way of life get started? And that, in turn, brings us back to that gaggle of nobodies in the early first century A.D. and what happened to them.

“What happened to them was the Easter Effect.

“There is no accounting for the rise of Christianity without weighing the revolutionary effect on those nobodies of what they called “the Resurrection”: their encounter with the one whom they embraced as the Risen Lord, whom they first knew as the itinerant Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and who died an agonizing and shameful death on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem. As N.T. Wright, one of the Anglosphere’s pre-eminent biblical scholars, makes clear, that first generation answered the question of why they were Christians with a straightforward answer: because Jesus was raised from the dead.”

Consider the basic proposition in the article.

What is labeled “a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world” became a dominate force in the world in just two and half centuries based on a other-worldly reality: Jesus was raised from the dead.

All of this was driven home to me as my wife and I attended an Easter service at our church, Salem Alliance. For me, it is always one of the most uplifting services of the year because it attests to the reality that infuses our lives with purpose and commitment: Jesus was raised from the dead.

Frankly, the service this year was a little less upbeat than in some past years. Not sure why.

Of course, there was still an emphasis on the reality of the resurrection, but, as an expression of personal priority, I would have been happier if an important hymn would have been sung: Up from Grave He Arose.

Here are the words of the refrain, which still resonate with me nearly every day.

Up from the grave He arose;
with a mighty triumph o’er his foes;
He arose a victor from the dark domain,
and He lives forever, with his saints to reign.
He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Great words – and true ones!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Washington Post writer James Hohmann has an excellent column this week outlining failures of the Trump Administration. He points to six important deficits, which helps to get past the daily dose of Trump tweets and end up with a bigger-picture list of troubles.

Without appropriate attribution, I repeat Hohmann’s list here.

In summary, Hohmann says “Trump is either woefully uninformed or intentionally misleading the American people” about his Administration. As an example, Hohmann points to Trump’s conduct on the DACA issue.

With a trio of temperamental tweets on Easter Sunday and three follow-ups on the next day, Trump announced there will be no deal to save the 700,000 “dreamers” whose futures he put in peril by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Trump also called on Republicans to change the rules of the Senate to pass anti-immigration legislation with a simple majority and threatened to kill the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico does not step up border security.

The president then falsely claimed that there are “big flows of people” who are sneaking into the United States “because they want to take advantage of DACA.”

In truth, to be eligible for the program created by former president Barack Obama, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. Anyone who came after does not qualify.

That leads Hohmann to his summary of huge problems with the Trump presidency.

• This is the improvisational presidency. There is no strategy. There is no message discipline. There is no process. Every modern White House plans out policies it wants to roll out months in advance. There is no calendar now.
• Trump does not understand how Congress works. He’s demanding that Senate Republicans use the “Nuclear Option” to pass his preferred immigration legislation with 51 votes, instead of 60. In February, though, only 36 of the 51 GOP members voted for the bill that reflected his demands.

Anyone with a sense of history who has thought through the institutional dynamics at play recognizes that ending the filibuster would, over the long-term, benefit liberals dramatically more than conservatives. The left wants bigger government and further-reaching laws than the right, and making it easier to pass new laws would enable that.

If only 51 votes are needed to pass bills, Democrats could raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban assault weapons and create single-payer health care next time they get the majority. Mitch McConnell, who got elected to the Senate in 1984, understands this. Trump does not.

• The president does not think through the second- and third-order consequences of his decisions. He’s undeniably motivated by a desire for instant gratification. Trump often appears to be thinking more about the next move than the end game. He also seems, especially on Twitter, more focused on scoring short-term political points than worrying about possible costs down the road.

Just like he does not care that ending the filibuster would hurt his adopted party when Republicans inevitably lose control of the Senate in the future, his provocations toward Mexico are generating ripple effects that could eventually make America less safe.

• Proximity is power in Trump’s White House. Most aides spent Easter with their families, including White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. But Trump was accompanied for the past four days at Mar-a-Lago by senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

The former spokesman for Jeff Sessions in the Senate is the leading advocate for nativist policies in the president’s orbit. More than anyone else, he’s torpedoed the prospect of a bi-partisan breakthrough on immigration by encouraging Trump’s base instincts.

Because Trump lacks many core convictions, he’s often swayed by the last person he speaks with before making decisions. That’s one reason staffers are even more eager to travel with him and be around the Oval Office than during a more traditional presidency.

• He’s heavily influenced by cable news punditry. Trump’s tweets refer to a so-called “caravan” of immigrants who are heading to the United States. He appears to have gotten this formulation from a segment that aired on “Fox & Friends” early Sunday morning, which was based on a BuzzFeed story from Friday about more than a thousand Central Americans – primarily from Honduras – who are on a month-long trip toward the U.S. border.
• Trump is not a reliable negotiating partner because he moves the goal posts. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill find the president difficult to work with because he’s inconsistent about what he wants. He threatened to veto the omnibus spending bill the week before last, after saying he supported it, because there was not enough money for a border wall.

Then he signed it anyway. Trump promised to show “great heart” for the dreamers. At one point, he said he’d protect the DACA kids in exchange for wall money. Democrats reluctantly agreed. Then he changed his demands, insisting that they also go along with massive reductions in levels of legal immigration. Now he tweets: “NO MORE DACA DEAL.”

“Time and time again, the president has walked away from bi-partisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for,” complained Nancy Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

For my part, I think Trump wins support in some quarters for exactly reasons such as those listed above. He doesn’t come across as a political figure who understands how to get things done in a complicated organization – the U.S. government. Rather, he succeeds in the minds of supporters, at least some of the time, exactly because he doesn’t understand government.

He thinks that just because he says it, it is true – and his views should drive the decisions without anyone else’s perspective.

That, of course, is stupid. No one wants a political figure without an agenda, someone who caters to every whim and caprice. But, what we do need is a leader with a sense of ethics, someone who acts with the interests of America in view rather just his own selfish, ill-informed ideas.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

This is a week I look forward to every year – the week when the Masters’ Golf Tournament is played on the iconic Augusta National golf course in Georgia.

For me, it’s mesmerizing to watch the tournament on TV. I have no difficulty watching every shot!

And that’s even more true since, in 2015, I had the good fortune to join my daughter, Lissy, and son-in-law, Tim, to attend the tournament in-person

What a great experience!

From Seattle (where my kids) live, we flew to Atlanta, then rented a car for the three-hour drive to Augusta.

There, we were scheduled to meet with a broker who, we hoped, had our Masters’ tickets. It was dark by the time we arrived and we managed to find the broker’s “office,” which actually was his house in Augusta.

He was there, sitting in his living room at his desk while, in the background, friends played pool while eating pizza.

Did he have the tickets? Yes.

My daughter had checked out the broker on-line and he appeared to be reputable. You’re never sure, however, given stories of brokers fleecing ticket buyers.

With our tickets in hand, we moved on to where we were staying, which was a La Quinta Motel about a mile from one of the Master’s tournament parking lots. My daughter checked on-line to learn that the normal, non-Masters’ tournament time price for the motel was $55 per night.

For us, it was $550, but we were glad to pay it to have a convenient place to stay. And, for my part, I don’t begrudge retailers in Augusta trying to make money one week every year.

A few more interesting highlights:

• Parking at the Masters is free. Incredible. Just think how much money the tournament loses by not charging for parking.
• But, then not charging is okay because, the tournament, which has been held at Augusta National for more than 80 years, makes enough money each year to offset the “loss” of parking revenue.
• If you are member of Augusta National, the club adds up its budget every year, whatever it is, then divides that total by the number of members and sends you your bill. Of course, you pay it without complaint.
• Speaking of not charging, or at least cheap prices, food at the Masters’ tournament is not expensive. Staff does a great job of handling long lines and not charging much for what you want, which probably includes a pimento sandwich. I had one – and one was enough!
• If you attend the Masters’ Tournament, you are called a “patron,” not a fan or a member of the crowd.
• Staff at the Masters’ enforce a few simple rules on the grounds, including:

+ You are not allowed to run

+ You are not allowed to wear your golf hat backwards

+ If you are watching on a hillside, you are not allowed to lie down

• Masters’ fans routinely observe qualities of good behavior. They cheer for good shots. They never audibly yell for bad shots.
• If you buy a Master’s chair – almost everyone does – you can place your chair on any hole, then leave to walk the course. While you are gone, another “patron” may use your chair for a time, but, then, when you return, he or she will readily give you back your chair. In that way, the tournament has a built-in set of extra bleachers.

By the way, Jordan Spieth won the tournament in 2015, leading wire-to-wire and shooting a record-tying 270 (−18) to win his first major at the age of 21. He was four strokes ahead of runners-up Phil Mickelson and Justin Rose, both previous major golf tournament champions.

We weren’t there for the finish. After watching parts of the par 3 tournament on Wednesday and the first round on Thursday, we hustled back to Atlanta for the flight home. Then, back in Seattle, we watched the weekend rounds to see Spieth’s win.

[At the par 3 tournament, we had great seats on the sixth hole about 15 yards behind the players. There, former U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza, an Augusta National Golf Club member was the host, welcoming players to the tee. As we watched shots on the sixth hole, we were about 150 yards or so from the fourth green where, at one point, we heard a huge roar. It was because the best golfer in history, Jack Nicklaus, had made a hole-in-one on the fourth green. Every golfer on the sixth green made the long walk to number 4 to congratulate Nicklaus on his feat!]

If Spieth’s win was one for the ages, as it had been described given his youth and wire-to-wire victory, so was our trip to the hallowed ground of Augusta National.

If my daughter were to list the Top 10 events of her life, the Masters’ would be on it. Same for me!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 direct the Department of Pet Peeves will full and complete authority to make the decisions I feel need to be made. No one tells what to do.

So, the Department is open again.

BIG PHARMA ADVERTISING: Big Pharma has had many grand successes – at least it would claim credit — but its TV commercials continue to make me sick. Across the dial, but especially on cable news, it’s hard to avoid drug ads in which the dominant theme seems to be a risk of sudden death. Worse, if the prescription doesn’t kill you, there’s a chance you’ll simply kill yourself.

Consider Chantix, which calls itself “the #1 prescribed Rx quit-smoking aid.” Its commercials mention the usual side effects, such as weight gain. Then, while happy-go-lucky background images roll, the announcer also warns of “suicidal thoughts or actions.” Talk about a dilemma: Die from smoking, or kill yourself because you finally tried to quit.

I say end the ads and focus, instead, on quality relationships between citizens and their medical providers who can provide good counsel on prescriptions worth taking.

SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY FOR PRESIDENT: This one is hard to believe and, for me, it becomes a pet peeves because of the conduct of Oregon’s junior senator was he served in the Oregon Legtislature.

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago:

“Yet when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week asked for unanimous consent to take up Mr. Grenell’s nomination (he was a nominee for an abasssador position), Oregon’s Jeff Merkley objected. Merkley has positioned himself as the leader of the anti-Trump resistance with visions of running for President—which proves that some people will believe anything.”

When he was in the Legislature in Oregon, Merkley came across as a holier-than-thou legislator who thought he had the right answer to every question. In fact, he didn’t even want to ask or answer any question.

To believe he has the chops to run for president is a thought only in his mind.

THE USE OF THE PHRASE “CENTER AROUND:” From time to time, I write about language issues, which is a risk because, when you write about such things, you can easily make mistakes yourself.

But, one of the phrases that continues to bug me is “center around.” Think about it. It’s impossible.  It should be “center on.”

This quote from the Wall Street Journal:  “The case raises issues that are crucial in the technology world. The dispute centers around how software developers use application program interfaces, or APIs, which are pre-written packages of computer code that enables programs, websites or apps talk to one another. APIs also spare developers the time and expense needed to write fresh code.”

Now, I add that the technology description escapes me, a techno- nerd, but the sentence would have been stronger, not to mention accurate, if the writer would have used “centers on,” not “centers around.”

CELL PHONE MARKETING IRRITATIONS: My wife and I went in the other day to the local AT&T store to try to bundle services, including cell phone and Direct TV, both under AT&T.

We ended being irritated.

First, AT&T promotional offers often are designed for new customers, not veterans like us.

AT&T advertising emphasizes the benefits of bundling, but, when you get to the decision point, there are few, if any, advantages.

Major companies such as AT&T should honor veteran customers, not just new ones.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Like it was yesterday, I remember the first time I heard the word “interoperability.” It was several years ago.

I thought it was a made up word and, at one point, it might have been. But, when I heard it a number of years ago, it referred to a proposed new emergency communications system for Oregon. As conceived, the new system would be “interoperable,” meaning that all first responders to an emergency – either manmade or caused by nature — would have the ability to communicate with each other regardless of the device they happened to hold in their hands.

The word appeared again this week in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal dealing with “electronic health records,” or EHR.

“The financial burden to a physician who uses EHRs on a daily basis is overstated.  My cost (and the typical average cost) is only a few hundred dollars a month.  Contrary to the author’s assertion (in a Wall Street Journal column), there is ample competition in the EHR industry, though these systems lack interoperability.”

That was the same issue that bothered the Oregon Legislature in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist tragedy when the Twin Towers came down. Those who responded first to that tragedy could not communicate with each other as they risked their lives to deal with the emergency.

Legislative leaders in Oregon wanted to avoid that calamity. So, by passing House Bill 2101, they commissioned what came to be called the “Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network,” or OWIN.

Remember this point – the Legislature passed a bill to embark on a major interoperable communications strategy. To put a point on it, moving forward was the law!

Two major companies in Oregon decided to compete to provide the new system for the state – Motorola and my client, Harris Corporation.

Both companies worked hard on the competitive opportunity, but, in the end, Harris won the contract. The trouble, of course, as I outlined in a previous blog, was that the state, in its wisdom or, frankly, the lack of it, decided to throw out all the work and undertake a far smaller project to allow four state agencies to communicate “interoperably” with each other.

Local agencies in cities and counties be damned.

The Legislature paid no attention to the bill it had passed, House Bill 2101, even forgetting that it done so and without any interest in being reminded of its previous action.

For me, this was a clear blot on the record of the Legislature, though, of course, I have a bias, one for which I do not apologize. Legislators turned their backs on a forward-looking emergency communications project, even after authorizing its start.

They no longer cared about the risks for the state when emergency responders couldn’t communicate with each other. I suspect, when there is an emergency event, those legislators won’t be anywhere to be found.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

There was one surprise and one non-surprise when seven Republican candidates for governor of Oregon showed up this week to debate each other in Salem.

In the surprise, the leading Republican candidate Knute Buehler did not show up for the event. There was no specific reason given for his absence, other than that he had a conflict. One imagines he didn’t want to show up to be part of a basically irrelevant event.

As for the obvious result, all of the candidates took the opportunity to chastise the current governor, Kate Brown, a Democrat, for what they called a litany of big problems. They named poor high school graduation rates, lack of accountability for public officials, and high taxes.

According to the Salem Statesman-Journal, one of the Republican candidates, former Navy Captain Greg Wooldridge, said a “lack of courageous leadership” and an inability to inspire from the Governor’s Office is hurting Oregon.

“This is the best state in the Union and it needs to be reflected in our results. It’s not being reflected in our results because of poor leadership,” Wooldridge said.

Wooldridge, in a closing statement, called for “strong leadership, putting teams of people together and healing the state.”

Other candidates disagreed, suggesting that they had no interest in working across the political aisle with Democrats, another illustration that compromise is often a dirty word in today’s politics.

All of this may not matter in the sense that Republicans have not won the Governor’s Office in Oregon for more than 35 years, dating back to the two terms of Governor Vic Atiyeh — and they probably don’t have a great chance to change the tide this time around.

Early predictions suggest that Governor Brown will have a good chance to win another term.

Her strongest opponent will be Buehler who, current reporting suggests, has kept pace with Brown on the fund-raising trail. Buehler has about $1.9 million on hand for his gubernatorial run, far more than the combined total of his primary opponents. He also has state government experience and the support from top Republicans in the state, including House Republican Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte.

Buehler is a potentially strong candidate, given his background as a physician and a legislator who distinguished himself in Salem.  Still, he is from Bend and legislators from outside Portland don’t often win statewide races.

As we anticipate the race for the state’s top political job, many of us will look back on strong campaigns by two earlier Republicans – Ron Saxton and Chris Dudley. Both ran credible races, but lost.

In the final weeks of his campaign, Saxton suffered when then-president George Bush lost political support, bringing many Republicans down with him, including Saxton who, up to that time, had a bit of a lead according to most polls.

In the case of his campaign, Dudley performed very well around the state in his first attempt at political office. As votes were tallied on the evening of the election, he led until the final hours of the vote-by-mail process. In those hours, he lost when Multnomah County votes came in, giving the race to the Democrat, John Kitzhaber.

Incredibly, Dudley won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties. He just couldn’t push over the top in Democrat strongholds in metropolitan Portland when public employee labor leaders got out the vote, often hand-carrying ballots to drop-boxes in the final hours, if not minutes, of the campaign.

Republican Dennis Richardson’s win in the most recent Secretary of State’s race gives Republicans some hope that they could accomplish the same feat in the gubernatorial race.

Perhaps, but don’t hold our breath. Still, the several months until the election is an eternity in politics.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Two paragraphs from the Washington Post writer James Hohhman caught my attention this morning in his Daily 202 Column:

“Millions of young people lived in fear that they – or someone they loved – would have their number called, and they’d be shipped off against their will to the rice paddies and jungles of a faraway land for a cause they felt was unjust and futile. From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. military conscripted 2.2 million men – boys, really – out of an eligible pool of 27 million. This helped fuel the mass movement against the war.

“Young people today aren’t worried about being drafted to fight Kim Jong Un in North Korea. But many are palpably concerned that they or someone they know could get shot at school. High-profile incidents, culminating with last month’s shooting in Parkland, Florida, have shaken many middle-class kids, who would not otherwise be inclined to activism, out of their suburban comfort zones.”

Back in the 1970s, I was one of those million of young people – boys, really — a reality which became especially acute in the draft lottery when my birth date produced number 32. That meant I surely would be drafted and, if drafted, would likely end up on Vietnam.

That reality, which I heard on the radio when I was still in college in the summer of 1970, prompted me, the next day, to head down to the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Seattle to try to sign up for the Army Reserve.

I thought I would be in a long line around the block waiting for the chance to enlist. No. It turned out I was the only one there and I immediately signed up for a six-year hitch in the Reserve, which was much like the more familiar National Guard.

What was my motivation?

I answer, without embarrassment, that it was to avoid being conscripted and sent off to Vietnam in what I believed then, and continue to believe now, was an unjust war….if war can ever be just.

My answer to the “just” question is yes, in the sense of what the allies did to counteract one of the most evil leaders in the world, Adolph Hitler. But Vietnam was nothing like World War II. There was scant real motivation for our involvement.

As students – and others – marched last weekend to express support for gun control, Hohhman’s perception is right. Note his language:

“But many are palpably concerned that they or someone they know could get shot at school. High-profile incidents, culminating with last month’s shooting in Parkland, Fla., have shaken many middle-class kids, who would not otherwise be inclined to activism, out of their suburban comfort zones.”

Kudos to the kids, I say.

They may have standing to counteract the counterfeit claims of the National Rifle Association that contends any gun control measures would trample on Second Amendment rights. The NRA’s answer to the Parkland tragedy? More guns – this time in the hands of teachers.

I wish the students success, just as I wished success for the demonstrators who opposed the Vietnam War.

The students – and those who support them – deserve credit for calling attention to the incredible tragedy of school shootings. Even writing those words tends to diminish the heartache of what has happened in America.

It’s past time to stop the gun craze!

I’ll give Hohhman the last word as he quotes former presidential candidate and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a Vietnam War opponent:

“Every historic moment has its own power, and these young people deserve their own moment. Many of them have earned the right to be heard through a shared loss that innocents should never experience. Their moral clarity defies politics or partisanship. These young people have touched the conscience of the country about common sense on guns, and they have the power to make it a voting issue again.”

 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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal starts with this brief sentence:

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing.”

I agree.

The piece, by Drexel University dean and English professor Paula Marantz Cohen, goes on to describe an example of students with very different views getting together, not to chide each other for those views, but, as I like to say, “to agree to disagree agreeably.”

The virtue of the piece leads me to reprint sections of it today in my own blog – as well as to cite a recent example in Congress, perish the thought, of “civil discourse.”

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing,” the Cohen piece says. “I cannot recall a period during my own life when people felt such unmitigated anger at each other—when so much outrage seemed to be directed across party lines. The word ‘liberal’ can summon up an outpouring of ire from one person, while the name ‘Trump’ can throw another into a fit.

“As a university dean and professor, I think it is my duty to encourage conversation, as opposed to vituperative name-calling. This is easier said than done. Yet, I am pleased to report a recent positive experience.

“I hold monthly gatherings with students in my office. I call them Dean’s Teas, though little tea is drunk. My goal, as the group discusses a controversial issue or current event, is to allow different points of view to emerge. This isn’t always successful. Sometimes everyone present is of the same mind, and we end up reinforcing each other’s opinions. Sometimes an unpleasant stalemate emerges. Last month, however, we had a discussion that I think epitomized civil discourse across different points of view.

“It began with an innocuous topic. Since our local football team, the Philadelphia Eagles, had recently won the Super Bowl, I proposed discussing the subsequent fanfare: both the celebration directly after the game and the parade held a few days later. Seven students offered stories of what they did and saw after the victory. We all initially agreed that it was a glorious time for our city, with goodwill emanating from everyone.

“We were basking in civic pride when a latecomer to the group mentioned his sense that an alcohol-fueled crowd, no matter how happy, is a pretty scary thing. He noted that the Super Bowl celebrations eventually devolved into chaos and a certain amount of violence. This observation changed the tenor of the discussion. The students now acknowledged that their experience after the game was not absolutely positive. Several said they eventually went home to avoid the unruly crowds. One admitted she had felt afraid. Others reported seeing destruction and police who were helpless in the face of a deluge of drunken people.

“From there we moved into a discussion of groupthink, which we admitted had been our initial tendency in discussing the Eagles’ victory. This led to a conversation about party politics. It turned out there were a range of viewpoints represented: An engineering student who backed President Trump as a voice for the unheard, a political-science major who had left the Republican Party and become an ardent Democrat after a tour of duty with the U.S. Marines in Iraq, a Republican business student who was focused on economic policy, an education major and strong Christian whose politics were unclear, a digital-media student with libertarian views, a biology major whose family had voted for Mr. Trump but who had opposed him because of his crudeness and sexism, a psychology major who missed President Obama and wished he had done more. (These were my impressions; I don’t know if the students would say I am characterizing them correctly.)

“Although the students had differing perspectives, they felt free to speak their minds with openness and respect toward one another. Perhaps because we had just revised our view of a noncontroversial subject, the Super Bowl celebration, we could see how serious issues might have multiple angles as well. At the end, we all agreed that though we were opposed to some of the opinions voiced in the group, we understood better where they were coming from and didn’t feel the welling of anger that we might have otherwise felt.

“This strikes me as a significant breakthrough. The most destructive aspect of our current politics, I am convinced, is not the position that the other side holds but the anger that this generates in those with different views. That anger is corrosive and dehumanizing. It is the force tearing America apart.”

It is not easy to express equanimity when we are convinced that the other side is profoundly wrong. But moving away from anger and recognizing the multifaceted nature of how people act and express themselves can provide an opening for sympathy, empathy and even compromise.

Those often are considered to be dirty words in today’s destructive arena of politics. If you compromise or show empathy to the other side in a debate, you are considered to have left your senses. The expectation in politics is that you will hew unalterably to your views, even if you get nothing but the satisfaction of, figuratively, standing on a street corner yelling at the top of your lungs.

If you want compromise, as I do, look only to the recent action in Congress to approve a budget bill to avert another government shutdown. It was compromise.

I hesitate to quote Senator Chuck Schumer, almost never an advocate for middle ground, but here is what he said about the budget deal after President Donald Trump threatened to veto it, then signed it.

“It (the bill) certainly doesn’t have everything Democrats want, and it does contain several things Democrats are not thrilled about. The same is true for our Republican friends. That is true of all good compromises.”

One hopes that Schumer’s comment can end up being another example of civil discourse, somewhat like the Drexel University class. But, frankly, in relation to Congress, I am not holding my breath.

Neither was General Colin Powell several years ago when he decided not to run for president as he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”  I share his sentiment…without holding my breath.