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 you turn around, you see President Donald Trump doing or saying something that generates headlines, usually ones that detract from what should be his main agenda – helping the private sector create jobs and boost the economy.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Capital Journal columnist Gerald Seib put it very well:

“Most people prefer to avoid controversy. Donald Trump seeks it out.

“Indeed, it sometimes seems that, if a controversy isn’t roiling, he works to create one and then stoke it. Sometimes this is to change the subject to one he prefers, sometimes to distract attention from the last controversy he wants to move beyond.

“It’s an approach mostly foreign to the worlds of politics and governance, which is exactly what his supporters like about it. Somehow it worked for Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate. We are watching a live experiment in whether it can work as president. Chances are it will always be thus.”

To put it mildly, Trump ran an unconventional campaign to win the presidency. The very fact of that approach drove many Americans to vote for him because they said they had enough of political convention.

The latest Trump feint occurred when he was reported to have revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week. Some U.S. officials said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

According to a Washington Post story, “the information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

“The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.”

In the Washington Post, Stephen Strasbourg said the action was a “picture not so much of conspiracy or malevoleance, but unfathomable carelessness.”

One of the biggest risks is that Trump doesn’t even understand the tension of U.S. intelligence sources and resources, so, speaking on the fly with Russians he wants to impress them with his own access to detail, thus revealing information that should be confidential.

“I get great intel,” he told the Russians. “I have people brief me on great intel every day.”

As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, so it is unlikely his disclosures broke the law. Still, they were stupid, if not worse, by compromising the U.S. international position.

His decision to fire FBI Director James Comey also appeared to divert focus on such issues in Congress as reforming health care and redesigning the country’s tax system. If you look at this situation dispassionately, it stood to reason that Comey should go because he failed to understand his role as part of a national law enforcement bureaucracy, not an independent actor. Reasons to fire him were very well laid out by Deputy U.S. AG Ron Rosenstein in a credible memorandum.

For Trump, the risk is that he compromises his own agenda or at least what, to his supporters, should be his main agenda — to grow the national economy.

If Trump thought about it, it might be assumed he would stay on track and on message. Perhaps he doesn’t think. He just acts in accord with his own egotism.

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 that old saw?

Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

As you consider the words in this admonition, they fit more in the days when printing newspapers was still the order of the day and the Internet, if it existed, was only in its infancy.

But, the message behind the admonition was worth heeding in the old days, just as it is worth heeding today.

Smart operatives who deal with the media try to avoid becoming part of the story. They don’t want the process of dealing with the media to outweigh the basic messages.

Consider the difference today, especially in respect to the Trump Administration (even if that word, administration, conveys a sense of order and discipline, which might not apply to the Trump presidency.)

Trump chooses to rail against the media and, thus, becomes part of the story or even the story itself.

Consider this excerpt from a column by Karl Rove that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

“On his 100th day in office, he (Trump) brought a huge crowd in Harrisburg, Pa., to its feet by attacking CNN and MSNBC for ‘fake news’ and charging that ‘the totally failing New York Times’ was run by ‘incompetent, dishonest people.’

“That same night, members of the White House Correspondents’ Association, in gowns and tuxedos, applauded at their annual dinner as the organization’s president rebuked Mr. Trump. ‘We are not ‘fake news,’ ‘ Jeff Mason of Reuters proclaimed. ‘We are not failing news organizations.’

“How wise was it for Mr. Trump to open his Pennsylvania speech by assaulting the media? Axios reported that West Wing officials ‘conceived of a split-screen effect’ for the event, with ‘Trump in full-blown nationalist populist mode, connecting viscerally with ‘forgotten’ Rust Belt Americans, while the other side of the picture showed elite Washington reporters dining in elegance.

“But spending his first 11 minutes attacking the press prevented Mr. Trump from focusing on what he’s doing to create jobs and fatten paychecks. Which do Mr. Trump’s ‘forgotten Americans’ care about more—his attacks on the press, or their own prosperity? Trashing the Times may keep his core supporters energized, but it does almost nothing to expand his appeal.”

Or, consider Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, who almost inevitably becomes part of the story, even as recent reports suggest that Trump may fire him. This from Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple in his “Daily Spicer” report:

“Many briefings with White House press secretary Sean Spicer seem like watershed moments. Like the first one, where he lectured the media about its reporting on inaugural crowds; like the one where he bolted as reporters yelled, ‘SEAN!!!!!’; like the one where he messed up his Holocaust history; like the one where he instructed reporter April Ryan how to carry herself during the Q-and-A session; like the one where he struggled to defend a tweet by his boss, which covers just about the rest of the sessions.”

Rove, the often-controversial political operative for the George Bush Administration, makes a good point above. Trump didn’t avoid arguing with the media because it buys ink by the barrel. He did just the opposite. He went after the media with both barrels and, thus, became “the story,” instead of being able to focus on his efforts to create jobs and boost the economy, both of which are still in the nascent stage.

To be sure, Trump might say he is diverting the media from being more aggressive in covering his actual work as president and, on occasion, he may be right.

But, Rove called the 100^tth day episode a missed opportunity for Trump.

Trump appears routinely to deal in missed opportunities.

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.

To refresh your memory, I am the director of the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering and I enjoy complete authority over how the Department runs.

In that way, I guess I resemble fired FBI Director James Comey who appeared to believe that he reported to no one and was responsible only to himself. Beyond that, there are no comparisons between me and the now-departed director.

Here, then, are new quotes worth remembering.

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL (WSJ) EDITORIAL WRITERS: The various Russia probes will continue with even more vigor. Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, a Comey loyalist, told Congress this week that he has seen no attempt to interfere with its investigation. He said the FBI has ample resources for the job and that he wasn’t aware of a request by Mr. Comey for more. This contradicted another media report.

If Mr. Trump hoped to cover something up, sacking the FBI director is exactly the wrong way to do it. Every G-man with a mediocre lead will leak if he thinks politicians are trying to sit on evidence. The next FBI director will be watched like a Russian agent for any hint of political favoritism. The House and Senate intelligence committees have also been given new impetus for thorough investigations.

COMMENT: I agree. Even if Comey deserved to be fired for failing to understand that he was not a free agent, all Trump’s firing did was to give new emphasis to the investigation of alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

AND THIS ALSO FROM THE WSJ: The main source of dysfunction is the man at the top. The President is his own worst enemy—impulsive, thin-skinned, undisciplined, by now readers know the story. Every time his supporters think he might finally be appreciating the weight of the job, or the gravity of a President’s words, he goes on a Twitter rant.

Rather than focus on his agenda, he keeps the Russia pot boiling by railing against critics. Health care—what’s that? He faults his communications team for mistakes, but they are usually based on incomplete information or an attempt to clean up the boss’s effusions.

Mr. Trump has assembled many able advisers and officials who are trying to serve the country and steer the mercurial President from his own worst instincts. If Mr. Trump won’t heed their counsel, he really will turn into Jimmy Carter.

COMMENT: No more neesd to be said than that Trump is his own worst enemy. Everything he does seems to detract from a job-creating agenda, which ought to be a top priority for America.

DANIEL HENNINER IN THE WSJ: No one outside Washington should be misled by the choruses calling for an “independent” prosecutor. This is special pleading.

For the political class it relieves them of responsibility for policing their own neighborhood. The media likes these prosecutors because they become Inspector Javerts, melodramatically chasing their targets for years, more often than not destroying reputations. The Justice Department’s guidelines make clear these special prosecutors are accountable to virtually no one. They don’t produce justice; they endanger it.

COMMENT: Given how past independent prosecutors have performed – emphasis on that word, performed – the last thing we need is to appoint another one. We ought to use existing channels, including in Congress, to get to the bottom of the Russian deal – or to determine, in fact, if there is a bottom.

FROM OREGON EDITORIAL WRITERS ON CHANGES IN OREGON’S TAX SYSTEM: If enacted at the level Warner (Paul Warner, the state’s chief revenue officer) described, a gross receipts tax, along with the elimination of the current corporate income tax and a slight lowering of personal income tax levels, would combine to raise $637 million of net revenue for the state in the next budget cycle.

Such a tax plan is one of several ways lawmakers are looking to close the state’s $1.6 billion budget shortfall for the coming two years. They’re also considering spending cuts and taxes on health care providers.

COMMENT: It would have been good if leaders in Salem had moved more quickly to devise a tax and spend deal – increasing certain taxes and cutting certain spending. It’s nearly too late to do so now, given the inevitable controversy over both parts of the equation.

FROM AN OREGONIAN NEWSPAPER STORY ON HEALTH CARE TAXES: The governor also sounded optimistic in a statement Thursday. “While there is still work to be done, I am optimistic about the progress we’ve made in the last few weeks with legislative leaders and stakeholders to find a solution that ensures quality health care continues across our state,” Brown said.

Solving the $882 million shortfall in the Oregon Health Authority budget is key to closing the $1.6 billion hole in the next two-year general fund budget. In April, top Democrat budget writers warned they would have to throw 350,000 low-income Oregonians off Medicaid and cut a number of other vital programs unless the Legislature raises $575 million in new revenue.

COMMENT: On this subject, one of the main challenges will be, once the taxes have been imposed and revenue collected, to assure that the money actually is devoted to health care and not siphoned off to other programs. Siphoning has occurred since the health care taxes were first imposed in 2003.

FROM COLUMNIST DANA MILBANK IN THE WASHINGTON POST: The very same president (Donald Trump) registered the approval of just 36 per cent of the country in a new Quinnipiac University poll. When Americans were asked to volunteer a word that comes to mind when they think of Trump, the top answer was “idiot.”

COMMENT: I am not a fan of Milbank because he only values the left, but his report on the Quinnipac poll is interesting. If I was polled about Trump, I might not say idiot. Perhaps buffoon, egotist, self-absorbed. Or many others.

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.

Even as many of us reckon with the U.S. House of Representatives’ action to replace parts of ObamaCare and pending action in the U.S. Senate, it is important to recognize that health care is like a number of other public policy issues these days:

• If you make policy decisions on the facts and statistics from a dispassionate point of view, you might get one result – or, more accurately, a series of results.
• If you make policy decisions based on anecdotes, you might get far different results.

It’s easy to say that my view is that public policy decisions should be made on the basis of facts, not anecdotes. But, based on my 40 years of work on public policy, not to mention my observation of the current health care debate in Congress, that is not the way the world works. And, in the spirit of full disclosure in my long tenure as a state lobbyist, I often turned to anecdotes to make a client’s point.

Anecdotes often carry the day.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it in relation to House passage of what is coming to be called TrumpCare, even as the Senate began debating how to respond:

“The Trump Administration and the GOP have to be prepared for the communication strategy their opponents are already employing, with the media’s help: The bombardment of emotionally laden anecdotes. Already Republicans are making the same mistake they always do, which is to rest their case on impersonal facts and figures.

“Facts are the background noise of debate and analysis; anecdotes are a message’s most powerful anchors. In the battle for public opinion, personal stories win. So what if ObamaCare is woefully undersubscribed because it’s a bad deal for young, healthy people, or if millions have watched their deductibles skyrocket and choices narrow? Do you really want Paula, Namir, Cameron and Jason to die (a reference to specific case studies involving names)?”

Consider the issue of pre-existing conditions. From an insurance standpoint, those who have such conditions should pay more to be insured than those with lower risks. Otherwise, a portion of the burden for pre-existing condition care falls on the rest of us.

A key tenet of insurance is to assess the level of risk and establish premiums in response to the risk. The higher the risk the higher the payment.

But, mark my words, Congress and the Administration, if they finally, pass a new health care plan, will decide pre-existing condition policy on the basis of anecdotes, not neutral facts.

Look no farther what comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, said on TV the other day, which almost immediately went viral via the Internet:

“If you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you’d never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition. If your parents didn’t have medical insurance, you might not live long enough to even get denied because of a pre-existing condition.”

Using neutral facts, one way to deal with pre-existing conditions is to create high-risk pools, which more than 30 states have done and which are included in the House-passed version of TrumpCare. It is true that some of these high-risk pools have not worked well, or at least have encountered very high costs which threaten their financial viability. But they also represent a worthy option to deal with a tough issue.

For me, the fact that anecdotes are driving health care policy underlines an important prediction: Before long, we’ll have a single payer system and government will be that payer.

One of favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, has reached the same conclusion and says in regard to U.S. House action on TrumpCare: “Ironically, ObamaCare won the day. I think what conservatives and Republicans are beginning to understand is how the fundamental view of health care among the American people has changed.

“ObamaCare is a disaster on the ground, and, politically, it ruined the Democrats. However, there’s an irony and a hidden victory here: Over these past seven years, people’s expectations have changed. You watched the debate over the last three months. What are the grounds? The grounds are all liberal grounds: How many people are going to lose their coverage? How can you leave people out in the cold? The Jimmy Kimmel thing. It’s showing that the country is at a point where I think it believes in universal coverage.”

So, I say, bring on the anecdote-driven single payer system and, then, we’ll have to decide how to pay for it.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 worked as a media and public relations executive during a time when there was an important and telling phrase:

Don’t argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

As you consider the words in this admonition, it fits more in the days when printing newspapers was still the order of the day and the Internet, if it existed, was only in its infancy. One reason I remember this old saw is that I am old enough to do so.

But, the message behind the admonition was worth heeding in the old days, just as it is worth heeding today.

When I served as a media spokesman for government or private interests, I tried to avoid becoming part of the story. I didn’t want the process of dealing with the media to outweigh the basic messages I was conveying. And, surely, I didn’t want to argue with reporters or editors because, to get back to the old saw, they could “buy ink by the barrel.”

Consider the difference today, especially in respect to the Trump Administration (even if that word, which conveys a sense of order and discipline, might not apply to the Trump presidency.)

Trump chooses to rail against the media and, thus, becomes part of the story or even the story itself.

Consider this excerpt from a column by Karl Rove that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

“On his 100th day in office, he (Trump) brought a huge crowd in Harrisburg, Pa., to its feet by attacking CNN and MSNBC for ‘fake news and charging that ‘the totally failing New York Times’ was run by ‘incompetent, dishonest people.’

“That same night, members of the White House Correspondents’ Association, in gowns and tuxedos, applauded at their annual dinner as the organization’s president rebuked Mr. Trump. ‘We are not ‘fake news,’ ‘ Jeff Mason of Reuters proclaimed. ‘We are not failing news organizations.’

“How wise was it for Mr. Trump to open his Pennsylvania speech by assaulting the media? Axios reported that West Wing officials ‘conceived of a split-screen effect’ for the event, with ‘Trump in full-blown nationalist populist mode, connecting viscerally with ‘forgotten’ Rust Belt Americans, while the other side of the picture showed elite Washington reporters dining in elegance.

“But spending his first 11 minutes attacking the press prevented Mr. Trump from focusing on what he’s doing to create jobs and fatten paychecks. Which do Mr. Trump’s ‘forgotten Americans’ care about more—his attacks on the press, or their own prosperity? Trashing the Times may keep his core supporters energized, but it does almost nothing to expand his appeal.”

Or, consider Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, who makes a habit of taking on the media, thus diminishing messages about the Trump Administration (there’s that word again!). Washington Post reporter Erik Wemple, has taken to publishing a daily “Spicer Report,” which quotes Spicer as a way of mocking his performance.

Here’s Wemple’s most recent summary:

“Many briefings with White House press secretary Sean Spicer seem like watershed moments. Like the first one, where he lectured the media about its reporting on inaugural crowds; like the one where he bolted as reporters yelled, ‘SEAN!!!!!’; like the one where he messed up his Holocaust history; like the one where he instructed reporter April Ryan how to carry herself during the Q-and-A session; like the one where he struggled to defend a tweet by his boss, which covers just about the rest of the sessions.”

Back to Rove. He makes a good point. Rather than avoid arguing with the media because it buys ink by the barrel, Trump did the opposite. He went after the media with both barrels and, thus, became “the story,” rather than being able to focus on his efforts to create jobs and boost the economy.

Rove, who has experience in the White House with President George Bush, called this a missed opportunity for Trump.

But, then again, Trump appears to deal in missed opportunities, especially when it comes to enabling a JOBS message to set at least part of the nation’s political agenda.

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 Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is one of two departments I direct. The other is the Department of Pet Peeves.

In both cases, I am the director with complete authority to move the departments along paths I deem appropriate.

So, here is the latest of installment of work by the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

On hill.com: Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) appears to be conducting himself in relation to Donald Trump just as Republicans conducted themselves when Barack Obama was president. Opposition at every turn.

“Schumer and former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada.) blasted Senate Republicans throughout President Obama’s presidency for obstructing his agenda. But just over three month’s into Trump’s first term, Schumer’s playbook looks similar to the one Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) used against Obama eight years ago.

“It’s a flashback to 2009: Keep the minority unified and use every opportunity to slow down the president’s agenda.”

Comment: If this is the way of government these days, there is no cause for optimism that middle ground solutions will emerge.

Also on hill.com: President Trump showed his typical disregard for normal political convention when he said a “government shut down would be good for America.”

“The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We … either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!”

Comment: As usual, Trump engages in overstatement, though, I suppose, a shutdown would have the effect of curbing Democrat attempts to grow government ever bigger.

Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “The cursing pols, the anathematizing abortion advocates, the screeching students—they are now the face of the progressive left.

“This is what America sees now as the face of the Democratic Party. It is a party blowing itself up whose only hope is that Donald Trump blows up first.

“He may not be lucky in all of his decisions or staffers, or in his own immaturities and dramas. But hand it to him a hundred days in: He’s lucky in his main foes.”

Comment: Noonan has it right, again. Democrats – the party principals at least, if not the rank and file – will hew more and more to the left, leaving many in the rest of the country behind.

Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal: “As team Trump digs into taxing, spending and health-care reform, it’s learning a vital lesson of Washington. Once a government benefit is given, it can never be taken away. If young people have been overcharged by ObamaCare so middle-aged people can be undercharged, then the solution is to undercharge young people too. The taxpayer — usually visualized as a hedge fund manager — can always pay more.

“There may be much to regret in President Trump’s temperament, his non-mastery of detail, his estrangement from the facts. Not without utility, though, is his generalized disdain for the major media, the most reflexively anti-reform institution in American life. Both major parties look like hotbeds of freethinking in comparison.

“The media are a major factor in the outcomes we get. Large spending commitments are willed into being without willing the tax revenues or economic growth to pay for them. Social Security and Medicare are in a $70 trillion hole. Unfunded pension and health-care liabilities of the states and localities are at least $2 trillion. Federal debt has doubled to $20 trillion in less than 10 years. GDP growth has fallen by half. In our next recession, annual deficits could quickly surge to $1 trillion.”

Comment: Jenkins is also right, especially in regard to one of his points – once a government benefit has been dispensed, it almost impossible to remove it. Finding balance in the Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare) is only the latest example.

In the National Review: “America has a “’smug liberal’ problem,” according to David French in the National Review. “Liberal dogma is rapidly becoming a secular religion, a ‘faith’ that conspicuously omits any requirement that one love his enemies. Christians have long struggled to keep one of Christ’s most difficult commands, but many leftists don’t even try.”

Comment: Yes, another comment decrying the motives and actions of the left? Alas, there is nothing that commends the right either. What we need are centrists, nearly lost souls in the current ways of 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.

The Department of Pet Peeves is open again. I am its director and I have full and complete authority to run the department as I see fit.

Call me a dictator.

This time, my pet peeve revolves around language.  It is using nouns as verbs. Doing so grates on my hearing.

One example that occurs very frequently today is the word “helm.” It is a noun, meaning, in nautical terms, the “wheel or tiller by which a ship is steered.” A more general definition is this: “The place or post of control.”

But is it a verb? I say no. Just use a word that means the same thing such as “steer” or “lead.”

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, when I looked up the word helm in the dictionary, there was a secondary definition that used the word as a verb. But I say no.

Or, how about the word “golf.” It means a sport, such as in “the sport of golf.”

But, one fairly common usage, says that you can “golf your ball.” Again, I say no. Use a word like hit or strike. Not golf.

Finally, an example that grates even more on my ear. The word is catalyst. I have a friend who surprised me one day a few years when he used the word “catalyst” as a verb as in “to catalyze.”

Even worse than others because it ads the letters “ize,” or in this case, “yze” to a word.

There is almost no example where adding “ize” is a good idea.

Nor is the word “catalyze.” Find another replacement.

I have been a writer for many years, dating back to high school when one of my dreams was to be a sportswriter when I realized I would not be a professional athlete. Well, that dream morphed into an early role as a general role for a daily newspaper, The Daily Astorian, and then morphed again into working for government (always with an emphasis on writing) and then again into working as a contract lobbyist (again with an emphasis on writing).

So, forgive me if I focus on what to me is the proper use of words. Leave nouns as nouns. Don’t make them into verbs. Find other useful options.

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.

What do Neil Gorsuch and I have in common?

Nothing you may say.

Wrong.

Both of us have been confirmed by “The Senate.”

In Gorsuch’s case, it obviously was the high-profile and tense confirmation by the U.S. Senate for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. It took the “nuclear option” for him to be confirmed.

In my case, I appeared before the Oregon Senate Rules Committee in response to my nomination by by Governor Kate Brown to serve on the nine-member Oregon State Government Ethics Commission (OGEC).

It is an honor for me to be asked to serve, as a volunteer, on this important state commission.

But, to put a point on it, my confirmation gained none of the notoriety attached to Gorsuch’s path through the U.S. Senate.   My appearance before Oregon Senate Rules lasted all of three minutes.

But the appearance did give me a brief forum to make a couple points. One is that I believe that ethics, at its base, is a matter of personal commitment and behavior. It’s who you are and how you behave.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

I reached this conclusion after working for state government for 15 years, then serving as a private sector lobbyist for 23 years. During that time, I watched ethical persons behave in an honest, forthright way.  Unfortunately, I also saw the reverse.

The latter is why the Ethics Commission provides a very important function for state government. That’s the second point I made to Senate Rules.

Living up to a clear set of standards – accountability standards in law and rule – is important for legislators, for public officials, and, yes, for lobbyists like myself before my retirement two years ago. It is the OGEC that manages and enforces those ethical standards.

The OGEC was created by vote of the people in 1974. The measure passed with 70 per cent of the votes. One reason was that the proposal made it to the ballot in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal when citizens across the country began calling for greater accountability from those in government.

In response, Oregon was one of the first states to open government to greater scrutiny by creating a commission with authority to hold elected officials, other public officials and lobbyist to high ethical standards.

So, I look forward to joining this important commission. I will do so after confirmation by the full Oregon Senate and, assuming a positive vote there, after taking an oath of office (which, interestingly enough in this technology age, can be done on-line).

Thus, before long, I’ll join Neil Gorsuch in being able to say that I have been confirmed by “The Senate.”

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 Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is open again – and I am the director with full and complete authority over which quotes to cite.

There will be no bi-partisanship here, just as there appears to be not much of the same in Congress or the Oregon Legislature.

This department is one of two I manage alone. The other is the Department of Pet Peeves. It is closed now, but will open soon.

So, here are the quotes, with comments from me.

Wall Street Journal editorial: “Amid these passing controversies—and ode to joy, there will be more—Congress ought to ponder how to better use the power of the purse. Most of the government has been on autopilot since 2010, lurching from one short-term funding bill to the next. The author of this dysfunction was the unlamented former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who shut down regular budget order to shield Senate Democrats from having to make spending choices. He carried the practice into the minority after 2014.”

Comment: Good riddance to Reid, one of the master manipulators of what should be a better democratic process in the U.S. Senate. He is gone, thank goodness, but, sad to say, his obstructionist policies remain in place.

William McGurn in the Wall Street Journal: “Let us stipulate that Medicaid reform and corporate tax cuts are both excellent initiatives. Done properly, each would offer Americans, including those at the lower end of the income scale, a better deal than they have now. Unfortunately, pitching health-care reform as the way to help ‘pay for’ corporate tax cuts undermines the best arguments for both.”

Comment: It appears that expanding Medicaid is the means to expand the provision of health insurance to many citizens, which means, to me, that we continue to be on the way toward a single payer system – with government as the payer.

Gerald Seib in the Wall Street Journal: “Imagine this new president had a given a different kind of inaugural address one in which he didn’t accuse the capital’s political leaders of flourishing at the expense of its citizens, but rather sketched out a vision of a new way of working with those leaders.

“This presidency wouldn’t have started with polarizing issues guaranteed to back both parties further into their corners: Aiming to repeal the Democrats’ signature health care law and imposing a ban on travel from a set of Muslim-majority countries as the first step in fighting terrorism. Rather, it would have opened with two big initiatives in which at least a few Democrats would have been willing – maybe even eager – to cooperate: Rebuilding U.S. infrastructure and changing the nation’s inefficient tax code.”

Comment: Good reflection by Seib on why the Trump Administration’s first 100 days – admittedly an arbitrary marker – has been fraught with peril.

Oregon union leader on legislature’s budget cut proposal: “Unions wasted no time in rebuking the proposals. Steve Demarest, SEIU 503 president, called the cutbacks “outrageous,” noting that the majority of the proposals are directed at public employees. This is an effort to scapegoat people who have dedicated their lives to public service,” he said. He called for lawmakers to solve the state’s budget shortfall by increasing taxes on corporations.”

Comment: No surprise here as public employee union leaders decry any budget cuts.

Oregon business leader on legislature’s budget cut proposal: “The business community praised the proposals. Patrick Criteser, chair of the Oregon Business Plan coalition, said the group supports ‘an approach that slows the runaway growth in state spending, especially one that tackles long-term spending. Once the business community has ‘assurance that costs will be addressed,’ Criteser said, businesses will be open to paying higher taxes to support education funding.”

Comment: Criteser’s comment underscores the long-standing reality for business – cuts must precede tax increases, especially in light of the union-inspired Ballot Measure 97 business tax increases that went down to a major defeat last November.

Republican McInturff in the Wall Street Journal: “If Trump is for it, a Democrat has to be against it. There is no middle left.”

Comment: McInturff is right on. There is no smart middle on much of anything these days.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek on prospects for as budget deal in the legislature: “It’s not enough to cobble together a budget that merely avoids the worst cuts for a couple of years. We need real cost-containment, real revenue reform, and real statesmanship to do right by the people who elected us to wrestle with these difficult issues.”

Comment: Kotek and other legislative leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle will have to get their act together if a compromise is to emerge before the end of the session in late June or early July.

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, unlike many of my friends, like my steak well-done.

Call me weird, if you will, but, still, I think fully-cooked meat – make it brown or black – is far better than red.

Better for you, too.

Here is the way a story in the Wall Street Journal – yes, the Journal, usually pre-occupied with major affairs of state and the economy — got around to a story with this headline:

***********

Well-Done Steak Without Shame

Diners who prefer well-done meat know what

***********

The writer went on:

“On a recent visit to a steakhouse in Omaha, Neb., Caroline Zaayer Kaufman went through a song and dance that may be familiar to anyone who always orders their steak well-done.

“The server, incredulous, asked if she was sure. (She was.) ‘So that means it’ll be cooked all the way through.’ (Yes.) ‘No pink in the middle?’ (Correct.) ‘The chef will probably need to butterfly it.’ (That’s fine.) ‘Your entrees will take longer to come out.’ (That’s OK.) ‘You know, you could just eat a hockey puck covered in blue cheese instead of wasting a steak.’”

For me, it was a bit disquieting to learn that President Donald Trump orders his steak well-done, but that apparent reality has drawn attention to the long-suffering portion of the population – including me — who like their meat bloodless.

The Wall Street Journal reports that about 19 per cent of diners prefer their meat well-done or very well-done, according to a 2014 study by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. The Journal goes on:

“Many in the well-done camp have grown accustomed to deep resistance—even condemnation—from restaurant staff. They also expect a second helping of scorn from tablemates.

“’There is definitely a feeling of shame that comes with ordering your steak well-done,’ says New Yorker Tom Gesimondo, owner of business brokerage firm Transworld Business Advisors of Brooklyn West.

“I am so tired of apologetically ordering my filet mignon and offering ‘the chef can butterfly it if he wants’, and having the wait staff accept my offer like they’re embarrassed for me,’ he says.

“Butterflying—slicing a thick cut of meat into two thinner cuts attached at the center—allows a steak to cook through faster. But it also lets out more natural juices and can lead to a drier end result.

“For that and myriad other reasons, most chefs resent it when customers ask for well-done.”

Well-doners like me have various reasons for the choice. Some say they’re concerned about possible bacteria in what they see as undercooked meat. Others say red beef juice makes them squeamish. Still others say they prefer a firm texture or the flavor of char.

But, for me, it’s just the way I like it – which is and should be enough! So, if you’re with me at a steak restaurant, prepare for the phrase, “very well-done please.”