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.

As the preamble to this blog notes, I was a lobbyist for nearly 40 years and, during that time, there were a number of sayings that caught my attention.

Call the sayings “lobby talk.”

And, even as OLD former lobbyist, I remember using them as if it was yesterday.

Why, you may ask, write about them now? Good question. For me, it’s just a way to reflect back on my past because, in retirement, I have time to do so between golf games.  But, it’s also true that the “lobby talk sayings” may relate to real life as much as they do to the craft I practiced for 40 years.

Here are a few of the sayings.

• The possible is held hostage in pursuit of the impossible perfect

This is the way to describe what still happens in elective government today. What’s possible is sacrificed – call the possible “compromise” – in pursuit of what cannot occur, which is the perfect.  I have watched this occur too many times, both in Congress and in the Oregon Legislature.

• What goes around comes around

The first time I heard the phrase was more than 30 years ago when it was uttered by Senator Mike Thorne, the Democrat from Pendleton who, then, was Senate co-chair of the Joint Ways and Means Committee. [He later became my client when he served as executive director of the Port of Portland and I continue to have the utmost respect for him.]

The phrase was meant to indicate that politics is often a circular game. If you lose at one point, you might win later when the issue comes back around for re-consideration. So, the saying is actually a moral – don’t get mad over one loss so being made inhibits the ability to win later.

• It’s like the camel’s nose under the tent

This saying refers to the likelihood, in lobbying, that the first step toward passage of a piece of legislation could become a floor for further steps. I often argued against the camel.

• It’s the first step down a slippery slope

Similar to the saying above, this is meant, again, to indicate that one step toward approval of a bill could simply provide more chances for further steps. Again, I often used this phrase to argue against that first step.

• What are the legislative sideboards?

I had a client who often asked this good question. His interest suggested either of two things: (1) That there was a standard legislative process to work through, one that had boundaries, or (2) that there are understood ways of operating in the legislative process at the Capitol in Salem that might logically be known to lobbyists but not to citizens.

• All hat and no cattle

When I first heard this phrase at the Capitol, I couldn’t stop laughing. It says so much in only a few words. When I heard it, it was used to illustrate that someone who had introduced a bill had no idea about what that bill would do, but introduced it only for its supposed, superficial political benefit. So, “all hat and no cattle.” Right!

How important are these old sayings? Well, not very. But, on occasion, they do constitute more than just lobby talk; by extension, they illustrate something about life in general.

 *********

A footnote: This may be a good blog to include a note on the unexpected passing of lobby colleague of mine for more than 30 years, Mike Dewey. After working for and then taking over a lobby from his parents, Mike served with distinction as a lobbyist for more than 44 years. We were never in the same firm, but we often worked for and against each other, as professional lobbyists do. Both of us managed to reflect the “disagree, but do agreeably” mantra. His kids in Salem grew up with mine, so we had that family connection, as well. Comfort and solace to his wife, Kathie, and his children, Meagan and Matt, as well as all of the family.

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.

My state lobby colleague, Dale Penn from CFM Strategic Communications, played a key role in passage of Measure 101 at the polls this week.

In response, he wrote a piece for CFM’s website that I reprint here because it very effectively captures what occurred at the polls.

Here’s Dale’s piece.

Voters in yesterday’s special election overwhelmingly approved of Measure 101, which leaves in place the Medicaid funding plan approved by the 2017 Oregon legislature. It also lifts a huge fiscal burden off the shoulders of lawmakers in the short 2018 session that begins February 5.

The die was cast when, early in the evening, results indicated nearly 80 percent of Multnomah County voters approved Measure 101. Even though half of Oregon’s 36 counties, many of them rural, voted against Measure 101, they were heavily outvoted with strong support among higher population centers across the state.

In a low-turnout election, the side that wins is usually the side that can motivate voters to cast ballots. The pro-Measure 101 campaign had the broad coalition support, cash to advertise and the foot-power to get out the vote. Measure 101 opponents had none of those things. More than 180 organizations, both large and small, came together in dozens of advocacy events to show support in protecting healthcare coverage funding approved during the 2017 legislative session.

Referenda usually start as political quarrels in legislative sessions, which was the case for Measure 101. Whereas in recent sessions, funding mechanisms paying for Oregon’s Medicaid program had enjoyed bipartisan support, the enhanced tax proposal in 2017 met with partisan objections from some Republican lawmakers.

Led by Rep. Julie Parrish (R-West Linn/Tualatin) and Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-Roseburg), opponents called it unfair and declared it a “sales tax on health care.” Similar messaging was used successfully during last year’s M97 debate and opponents were trying to drum up support from Oregon voters who reacted to that rhetoric.

Supporters of the admittedly complicated Medicaid funding mechanism fought back, saying it was the best bipartisan plan to raise the money necessary to attract federal Medicaid matching dollars. They said opponents raised objections, but offered no politically viable alternative funding plan.

In the end, the $3.6 million campaign drowned out the opposition campaign, which reportedly spent less than $150,000 (a significant chunk of that raised in personal loans from Rep. Hayden). While TV ads provided air cover, the real difference was in the get-out-the-vote drive, aided by union and hospital supporters of Measure 101.

A key takeaway from this election may be the impact on future efforts by minority legislators or interests who seek to alter agreements they oppose. With M101 receiving more than a 6o per cent majority, those parties may think twice before attempting similar fights on other legislative packages. Oregon’s referendum process is there for a reason, but legislators already have a mechanism for debating the validity and appropriateness of these type of budget and policy issues. Through the election process, voters can hold their elected leaders accountable for their work.

More than 1 million Oregonians are covered by Medicaid, which represented a fertile target audience to turn out to vote. In a relatively low-turnout election, a motivated group of voters can make the difference.

This was an election decided by urban Oregon voters. Majorities in big counties for Measure 101 ranged from 79 per cent in Multnomah County to more than 65 per cent in Benton and Lane counties. Jackson County in Southern Oregon went 58 per cent for Measure 101. Suburban Washington County favored Measure 101 by more than 60 per cent and Clackamas County, which Parrish represents, gave the measure a 58 per cent plurality. Marion County went for Measure 101 by a 55 to 45 per cent margin.

Oregon’s last special election was in 2010 when the state debated M66/67, which raised personal income tax revenue on the state’s highest-earning individuals and corporations. In that election, 1.28 million Oregonians cast ballots, representing 62.7 percent of eligible voters. Final numbers for M101 are yet to be released, but estimates are significantly lower.

The victory for Measure 101 was declared at 8 p.m. when the first batch of ballot totals were released.

Further, a couple reflections from me:

1. The taxes on hospitals and health insurers actually have been in place in Oregon for almost 15 years. There are now new taxes, as alleged by the opponents. They were designed in 2003 to create of state money that could be used to garner federal matching dollars under the Medicaid program. Of course, over the years, there have been changes to the taxes, but the fact is that they have been a staple of state financing for years. That doesn’t make them good taxes; it just means they have been around for some time.
2. I have had my own concerns about the tax (is taxes a relatively small proportion of payers to fund what should be a societal responsibility), but I also have come to a consistent conclusion that hospital-insurance taxes are a compromise that works. So, no reason to hold hostage the possible in search of the impossible perfect.

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.

From Jason Gay in the Wall Street Journal: “For the first time since 2017, the New England Patriots are going back to the Super Bowl.  Twelve long months, the fans of this franchise have been forced to wait to return to this game!

“I think I just saw a couple of Detroit Lions fans walk into traffic.

“Do you realize that 95 per cent of Bostonians are physically addicted to Duck Boat championship parades? It’s a public-health crisis. Dunkin’ Donuts now serves a flavor called Brimming Entitlement.

“Even crazier: Belichick smiled when the Pats sealed the win. Smiled!

“At first, I thought he had stepped on one of defensive coordinator Matt Patricia’s sharpened pencils, and was gritting his teeth in pain, but I believe it was, indeed, a smile. Photo evidence is being submitted to the National Archives as we speak.

“You have to love the Grumpy Lobster Boat Captain, Coach Belicheck. Did you see the cut-off sweatshirt-slash-undershirt Belichick wore to his postgame press conference? I’m not saying the media should be offended, but it was the kind of thing someone wears to clean squirrel nests out of the gutters.”

Comment: Gay, as usual, demonstrates his gift for satirical humor. I start with this quote, not because the coming Super Bowl is the most important issue these days. Rather, it provides a time to get away from the often harsh reality and focus on an annual spectacle.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “’Our country was founded by geniuses, but it’s being run by idiots,’” Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters on Friday night.”

Comment: Good point. Kennedy’s comment came before the shutdown was over, but it was a solid illustration of the depths to which government has sunk in the U.S.

From Gerard Baker, editor of the Wall Street Journal:  “Everyone in Washington seems to be trying to calculate who gets blamed for the shutdown—or indeed if it has much political effect at all. The Journal’s Gerald F. Seib writes that the turmoil reflects the current state of the U.S. political system. The process, he says, is being driven not by those in the broad center but by those in the more narrow and partisan ideological bases of the two parties.”

Comment: Shutdown politics rears its ugly head again as extremes on both sides look for political gains. Usually, despite claims to the contrary, no one wins…see below.

From Gerald Seib in the WSJ:  “Most people, inside Washington and out, don’t want the government to shut down. And a majority of people, inside Washington and out, want to find a way to help the Dreamers, immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally when they were children.

“Yet, the government has shut down because of a dispute over the Dreamers. How does this kind of thing happen?

“The shutdown happened because most politicians worry more about a backlash from their bases for not being rigid enough than about an adverse reaction from the broader public for being too rigid.

Put differently, for many politicians, the danger lies less in the shutdown than in anger within the base for failing to push all the way to a shutdown. Activists in the bases, after all, provide the energy in election season, and they have been increasingly willing to shoot their own kin when they prove too willing to compromise with the other side.

Comment: True. Extremes, not the center, control the process.

From the Wall Street Journal: “’Democrats went into battle and then buckled and weren’t ready for it,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of The Progressive Change Campaign Committee. There should have been an outside game that was planned.’

“How Senate Democrats got to the point of charging forward on Friday night and then pulling back on Monday morning is the story of a Republican party more organized than the Democratic insurgents and centrists in both parties who challenged the partisan rhetoric of both Mr. McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.)., forging a path forward during meetings where one senator nearly broke a glass elephant with a ‘talking stick.’

“Over in the department of futile and stupid gestures, the Senate on Monday voted 81-18 to end the government shutdown that Democrats had insisted on late last week. The politics apparently didn’t turn out to be the winner the Democrats anticipated, so they bailed out and called retreat a victory.”

Comment: Finally? The moderate center in the U.S. Senate emerged to bring sense out of nonsense despite comments from such over-the-top advocates as Adam Green who, from the extreme left, want continued stalemate. Give the moderates plaudits.

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.

One of my favorite political quotes of all time belongs to General Colin Powell who, when he decided not to run for president a number of years ago, provided one of main reasons:

“I bemoan the loss of civility in politics.”

Well, I am no Colin Powell, but I share his perspective.

So does James Hohmann writing in the Washington Post this week:

“Another idea:  Showing some basic manners and civility might help heal some of our national wounds.”

Hohmann reports that two former White House social secretaries, Jeremy Bernard and Lea Berman, have co-authored a new book called: “Treating People Well: The Extraordinary Power of Civility at Work and In Life.”

Bernard worked for Barack and Michelle Obama from 2011 to 2015, and Berman worked for George and Laura Bush from 2005 to 2007.

In their book, they write: “Some people heap disrespect on anyone who dares oppose them, tap into anger and manipulate it for their own benefit, and don’t seem to see anything wrong with that. If bad behavior is contagious — as many studies have shown it is — we’re in an epidemic.”

The elephant in room, but not called out by name, is President Trump.

Roxanne Roberts writing in the Post’s Style section, put it this way:

“His belittling tweets and personal insults are the antithesis of conventional presidential discourse. Some people see the blunt language and name-calling as a sign of principle and strength.  Or are they just bad manners? Call it what you will, but it’s bad for the country.

“Good people can and do disagree, but a lack of basic respect is corrosive and crippling to democracy itself.”

One of the authors of the book mentioned above said “I think that treating people well now could be seen as a form of passive resistance and a rejection of what we see in the public arena. For generations, we’ve looked to our leaders and followed their behavior. Now, maybe the leaders need to look at the people and the way we conduct our lives. … In the past, presidents did not speak ill of others in a personal way. It seems to be something this president is comfortable with.”

How can we make an uncivil world more civil? Ignore as much of lack of civility as you can. Deflect what you can’t ignore. Consider viewpoints other than your own may have merit. And when things are really terrible, refuse to be drawn into the drama of the bad behavior because that’s usually what the person behaving badly is seeking – affirmation.

As I write this, politicians in the Nation’s Capitol are stuck in a government shutdown, which is a tribute to bad blood and immaturity on both sides – in other words, lack of civility. To hear both sides talk, it is as if they hate the other side.

I was struck earlier this week when one national news outlet gave Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, clearly a junior senator, time to utter standard Democrat themes blaming Republicans and President Trump for everything.

Almost at the same time, Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee was mouthing just the reverse – blame Democrats.

No less a Republican leader than House Speaker Paul Ryan said this: “Mr. Ryan told cheering GOP lawmakers that Republicans had been reasonable while Democrats had overreached and that the minority party was now seeking a way out. The federal government is needlessly shut down because of Senate Democrats.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was over-the-top in his anti-Trump and anti-Republican comments on the Senate floor. He labeled the shutdown, “The Trump Shutdown,” only to receive a rejoinder from Republicans, labeling the impasse the “Schumer Shutdown.”

So, again, lack of civility prevails in Washington, D.C. Whose fault? Both sides!

Let’s hope for a return to civility and a mature ability to get business done for the benefit of those in the general public who want good government.

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.

Remember, this is one of two departments I direct – and I have absolute freedom to include what I want to include and to ignore what I want to ignore.

How’s that for sounding Trumpian?

Now, on to the quotes.

From Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal: “When candidate Trump first referred to ‘the swamp,’ he was talking about the bog of Beltway lobbyists and ‘establishment’ politicians. But President Trump’s first year in office has revealed that the real swamp is the unchecked power of those who actually run Washington: The two million members of the federal bureaucracy. That civil-servant corps was turbocharged by the Obama administration’s rule-making binge, and it now has more power—and more media enablers—than ever. We live in an administrative state, run by a left-leaning, self-interested governing class that is actively hostile to any president with a deregulatory or reform agenda.

Comment: So, yes, give the Trump Administration its due here. It has moved to undo the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration. One hopes that the goal is not just to undo regulations, but to undo ones that don’t work or that go beyond an appropriate government role. That is a key distinction, one I hope the Trump Administration remembers.

From James Hohmann in the Washington Post: “THE BIG IDEA:  Following President Trump’s tweets can feel like watching a short man drive a Hummer. His fragile ego is always looking to overcompensate. The latest manifestation of that is downright Napoleonic.

“North Korean leader Kim John un said Monday that the United States is ‘within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.’

“Twelve minutes after Fox News highlighted that quote last night, Trump tweeted, ‘Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a nuclear button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his, and my button works!’”

Comment: So, the motive from Trump continues to be the “mine is bigger than yours” claim. Who cares? The nuclear buttons are a source of real concern, worth more than absurd quotes and tweets.

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page: “Trump has genuine accomplishments about which it is appropriate to boast — including tax reform, judicial nominees who are reshaping the federal courts, and a stop to new regulation. Yet even with the economy growing faster, and a tight labor market beginning to bid up wages, Mr. Trump’s job approval remains below 40 per cent in the Real Clear Politics average.

“The paradox results from Mr. Trump’s governing behavior. His attacks on all and sundry have polarized the electorate even more than it was on Election Day in 2016. He retains the support of his most fervent base but he has lost support among many who voted against Hillary Clinton more than they did for him. Those Americans tend to think that a nuclear missile exchange isn’t a laughing matter.”

Comment: Well said. Trump can’t stop talking or tweeting and both compromise consideration of the Administration’s first-year accomplishments.

From Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal:  “My antipathies nicely divided, I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate in the last election. When it was over, I was pleased that Hillary Clinton had lost and depressed that Donald Trump had won—and if that ain’t being riven I don’t know what is. But once Mr. Trump was elected I wished him well. Not that he made it easy to do so. His style was, to put it gently, alien to my notion of a serious leader. Modesty, civility, a sense of measure, regard for the gravity of his office—none of these arrows were in his quiver.

“Very well, I thought, my job, as someone hoping for his country’s success, was to separate Mr. Trump’s personality from his policies. I am, after all, in favor of some of his ideas: holding the other nations in NATO responsible for paying their share of its cost, moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reducing our contribution to the essentially anti-American United Nations, working to clarify the muddle of ObamaCare, reforming the tax system. Separate the personality from the policies: One would think that easy enough to do. Mr. Trump has, by the nature of his rebarbative personality, made that a difficult, if not impossible, task.”

Comment: A solid goal to separate personality from politics? Yes. But perhaps impossible – and Trump makes it so.

From Ordie Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University in a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:  “Though there are surely wonderful Norwegians, the government in Oslo calls to mind the Barry Switzer line: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

Comment: As a person of Norwegian heritage, I noted that in his Oval Office distribute, Trump said he would welcome more Norwegians to immigrate. Yet, the quote from the Wall Street Journal indicates a truth: Norwegians have benefitted from their geographic position – and surely, as they used to say on the Seinfeld TV show, “there’s nothing wrong with that.”

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 have long been an advocate for finding middle ground in politics, the area between Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left where the best policy solutions lie.

The idea of middle ground is a basic tenet of politics, which has been defined as “the art of compromise.”

But compromise has become a dirty word. And, even worse, Democrats in the nation’s capital this time around don’t even want to consider compromising. Republicans preceded them in opposing middle ground during the Obama years, especially on what came to be known as ObamaCare.

The reason for Democrat intransigence this time (which will even be more evident as they deal with the reality in the Senate that the House passed legislation today to avoid as government shutdown):

Wall Street editorial writers put it this way in regard to the current showdown over government shutdown:

“Washington is going through one of its hoary melodramas with the threat of a partial government shutdown at 12:01 Saturday morning if Congress doesn’t pass a funding bill. These are usually worth ignoring, but in this election year we are likely to see more such showdowns. So it’s important to understand the rule of shutdown politics: Democrats want a shutdown but Republicans will get blamed for it.”

Notice the phrase. “Democrats want a shutdown but Republicans will get blamed for it.”

So, that’s what is going on behind-the-scenes in Congress.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

“Democrats don’t want to take yes for an answer. GOP leaders want to negotiate a two-year budget deal separate of negotiations over immigration. But Democrats are refusing, though the date when new work permits will no longer be issued to the so-called Dreamer immigrants is the first week of March.

“Democrats are refusing even though the tentative budget deal being hashed out behind the scenes would also give them a big increase in new domestic non-entitlement spending over two years. Republicans would get more defense spending. Such a deal will give more Republicans heartburn on the policy merits, but Democrats still won’t accept.

“On Wednesday Democrats were even refusing to accept a short-time spending bill to fund the government for a month that includes reauthorization of the CHIP program for children’s health care. Democrats have spent weeks attacking Republicans for not reauthorizing CHIP, implying that children will be denied care.

“Democrats think a shutdown will improve their chances of retaking the House and Senate in November. Everything they do, every decision they make, is a political calculation with that in mind. Thus supposedly grave moral choices like children’s health care and legal status for immigrants are more important as political battering rams than as policy accomplishments. Dysfunction is desirable because Republicans are nominally in charge and will get the blame.”

Now, some of you may emphasize that Republicans played this same political gotcha game when they opposed president Barack Obama.

Yes, true enough. So I say a pox on both parties in Congress.

What we need is new blood in Congress and in the Oval Office, new blood that will be willing to compromise for the benefit of all Americans, not just for those who seek to stay in power.

Before that happens, there is little doubt but that we’ll have to endure more “government shutdown politics.”

As Americans, we’ll also have to change how we look at political figures. The test should not be whether they agree with us and are willing, figuratively, to yell loudly on the street corner to get attention. Iy should be whether political figures are committed to finding middle ground solutions.

Third-party candidates anyone?

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 have found it hard over the last few days to imagine a president in this country using the word “s___h___” during a meeting in the White House.

If you would have asked me a year ago or so, I would have said, no, think again.

But, then we get Trump.

Not only do his comments illustrate that he has no sense of decorum, they compromise the ability to get anything done, including elements of his own agenda…that is, if he has agenda. In this case, rather than working on immigration reform, Trump’s agents and those in Congress spent hours discussing what he said and whether he uttered the “s___h___” comment.

Try to imagine yourself serving in the White House or in Congress with a person like Trump as president. The White House has some accomplishments in the first year of the Trump presidency, but, then, Trump says what thinks, without thinking, and you forget the accomplishments. Nearly everyone focuses on Trump’s disdain for decorum.

So it was this morning that I read again about Jeff Flake, the senator from Arizona, who can no longer tolerate serving in what once was the “world’s great deliberative body.” He is quitting and there are those who would say that he would not have won re-election again anyway.

Yet, even as he contemplates his departure from the Senate, I give kudos to Flake for his willingness to speak out against Trump, not for the president continuing to flout decorum, but for the damage Trump does to traits like truth.

Here is how, Flake put it on the Senate floor this week.

“2017 was a year which saw the truth – objective, empirical, evidence-based truth – more battered and abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government.

“It was a year which saw the White House enshrine ‘alternative facts’ into the American lexicon, as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods. It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. ‘The enemy of the people’ was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.

“It is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase ‘enemy of the people,’ that even Nikita Khrushchev forbad its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of ‘annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader.

“This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him ‘fake news,’ it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.

“I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome responsibility to serve in this chamber knows that these reflexive slurs of ‘fake news’ are dubious, at best.”

William Galston, writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, goes even farther, saying democracy is at risk, though he does hold out hope for its survival despite Trump.

“Many Americans worry about our democracy, and some fear for its survival. I believe we will emerge from these dark times with our institutions intact, and with a renewed commitment to the principles and norms that made us—until very recently—a symbol of hope around the world. I am confident the American people will ultimately reject a president whose public and private statements imply that he rejects the premise of our founding document, that all men are created equal.”

We need more political figures like Flake and Galston who are willing to call them as they see them. We’ll miss Flake’s honesty in the Senate and here’s hoping, with Galston, that democracy can prevail against Trump’s machinations.

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 do some of my best thinking while returning from the golf course.

Yesterday, three questions crossed my mind:

• Does Donald Trump ever get embarrassed by what he said, such as the “shithole” comment in relation to Haiti, El Salvador and Africa?
• Does Donald Trump ever regret anything he says – such as the statement above or previous ones criticizing the Mexican judge, questioning Senator John McCain’s patriotism, or taking on the couple who had lost a son in war?
• Will Donald Trump ever issue an apology for something over-the-top which has crossed his lips?

I imagine the answer to all of these questions is no.

Trump appears to have no funnel through which he decides what to say. He often appears to say the first thing that comes to his mind, usually after watching Fox News.

If what he says one moment contradicts what he said before, no problem.

Before Trump was elected, he got into a set-to with reporter Megyn Kelly who magnified her disagreement with Trump into a major role for NBC news. Here’s what Jenna Johnson from the Washington Post wrote then and it is still true today:

“If there’s one thing that Trump does not do, it’s apologize — for anything, even comments or tweets he later admits were not in the best taste. That’s a list that seems to include two re-tweets from August that called Kelly a ‘bimbo’ and this tweet from January: ‘I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead, I will only call her a lightweight reporter!’”

Yeah, right.

So, does Trump have a conscience?

I obviously don’t know, but, again, it would appear not.

If the issue was only the lack of decorum in the Oval Office, that would be one thing. But it is deeper than that.

Trump comes across as racist. He is an egotist. He believes “it’s always about me” and that he is always right…others be damned. He wants everyone know that he has his finger on nuclear button and it is bigger than anyone else’s.

We need someone better in the White House!

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.

Every time I hear Trump talk, I wonder if we have heard the last of his over-the-top and vulgar pronouncements.

Then, he tops himself.

He did so earlier this week when he uttered a vulgar phrase that should never come off a president’s lips.

“Why do we want all these people from these shithole countries here?,” Trump was reported to have said. By these “shithole” countries, Trump was referring to El Salvador, Haiti and Africa.

A faithful reporter like me would go on to say that Trump added this phrase to what he said, “We should have people from places like Norway.” Well, that is my ancestry, so, yes, let’s have more Norwegians.

But the point of this blog is to say that Trump is the worst of presidents. His language is incendiary. In this case, it risked compromising talks under way between Congress and the Trump Administration to find middle ground on immigration issues.

Tough to find middle ground with a president who doesn’t see any. Or, least compromises any attempt to find such ground.

CNN editor Chris Cillizza put it this way: “Make no mistake: This is the lowest ebb of a presidency defined by a series of low ebbs and defining of the presidency downward. Yes, lower than Trump’s comments about Mexico sending us “rapists” and “criminals.”

“Lower than questioning Sen. John McCain’s military service. Lower than his impugning of a judge because of his Mexican heritage. Lower than his questioning the motives of a Gold Star family. Lower than the 2,000 mis-truths and outright falsehoods he has said since becoming President. Lower than his racially-tinged attacks on the anthem protests by NFL players. Lower even than his “both sides” argument in the wake of white supremacist violence against peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“This is not only a President of the United States voicing racist sentiment in front of a group of people. It is also doubling down on those sentiments — proudly! — because it might advance his political power among his base.

“This is — much like Charlottesville — an abdication of the moral authority of the presidency, but it’s more than that: It’s saying, quite simply, that saying racist stuff is a-OK as long as it works politically.

There are things that are — or should be — beyond politics. The most important of those things is the belief that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Racism from Trump? Yes. There is no other way to read his latest statement. I

Is it as low as he can go? Probably not.

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.

My involvement with hospital and health insurance taxes to fund low-income health care in Oregon goes back to 1993.

That was the year the health care taxes were first instituted.  The lure was to use the new “state” — money paid by hospitals and insurers — to serve as match to garner millions of dollars under Medicaid.

Since then, I have had questions about the merits of the tax, but back then, as well as today, I always have come to an uneasy conclusion:

This is the best solution available for Oregon.  You don’t have to like all aspects of the taxes…you just have to settle for them.

So, I say vote “yes” by January 23.

The lure of federal matching dollars has prompted more than 40 states, plus the District of Columbia, to engage in the tax scheme.  At various times in the last 15 years, it has seemed like the federal government was ready to turn off the spigot.  But, the approach has remained in place.

Here in Oregon, one of the reasons that the tax makes sense is that health care does not rise to the top of the political priority scale at the Capitol in Salem.  The top spot usually is reserved for K-12 education, which continues to draw a huge chunk of total state dollars.

The common plea from K-12 advocates is that it’s “never enough, but they are still at the head of the line for state money.

Next is either cops and prisons, or higher education.  So, health care and human services come in last among the major contenders.

That means the only way to assure care for low-income citizens is to resort to the hospital and insurance taxes.

Now, if I supported the “no” side of this debate, I’d say that hospital and insurance constitute bad tax policy.  Better to apply a tax across the broadest possible swath of taxpayers than to single out certain payers.

I might also charge that it’s often foolhardy to trust state budget makers in the legislative process because they often engage in sleight of hand that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to track sources of money in coordination with the final destination of those dollars.

But, I digress.  No point in making arguments for those who oppose the taxes.

Better to cite a source none other than Dr. John Kitzhaber, former governor of Oregon, who while he is under an ethical cloud, remains very knowledgeable about health care policy issues. Here is what he wrote for the Oregonian newspaper.

“I agree that funding for the Oregon Health Plan is a shared social responsibility, but jeopardizing health insurance coverage for 350,000 Oregonians to make that point is equally unfair and unnecessary.

“Let’s put this into perspective. We need a stable, long-term — and equitable — funding strategy for the health plan, which contributes to the state’s chronic structural budget deficit. As The Oregonian correctly pointed out, the governor and legislative leadership failed to address either issue. But defeating the ballot measure will only make it that much more difficult to do so in the future.

“Should the ballot measure be defeated, there will be a number of immediate consequences. First, 350,000 low-income, working Oregonians will lose their health insurance coverage. These people should not be punished because the short-term legislative funding is not as broad-based as perhaps it should be. Doing so would be to sacrifice the good for the perfect and leaving us with the unacceptable.

“Second, since the federal government matches every dollar the state spends on Medicaid, the Oregon economy will lose billions in federal funds. Enrollment in the Oregon Health Plan will decline by more than one-third, making it difficult to maintain the infrastructure of our coordinated care organizations that have made Oregon a national leader in reducing the cost of health care while maintaining quality and outcomes. This would not only be detrimental to those currently covered by the Oregon Health Plan, it would also compromise the integrity of a health-care delivery model that offers perhaps the best opportunity to reduce the long-term cost of care for both public and private employees.”

Kitzhaber is right. The only rationale vote is “yes.”