PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

This question – what does a potential political leader running for office really want to do once he or she gets to a job – contains both risks and rewards for candidates.

The risks are that you will be expected to deliver on your promises. The rewards are the same.  But, if you want a top political job, you ought to have a set of key reasons for wanting to win.

The Oregonian newspaper published a story on Sunday, October 23, asking about what really motivates Democrat candidate Kate Brown as she bids for her own term in the state’s top political job, albeit only a two-year run.

Oregonian reporter Hillary Borrud wrote it this way:

“But the back-and-forth (on transportation funding) plays into a long-running debate about Brown’s leadership style, eighteen months after Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned in scandal and just weeks before Oregonians decide whether she should finish his term or give way to Republican Bud Pierce.

“Has Brown’s penchant for pragmatism — honed during 25 years in state office — sometimes kept her from challenging other political players and interest groups? Is her famed niceness enough? And will having a mandate, if she wins election Nov. 8, free her to lay out her vision for the state? 

“Brown has enjoyed goodwill from lawmakers and others who sympathized with her struggle to soothe the state post-Kitzhaber. She also responded adeptly as Oregon dealt with last year’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College and then, months later, militants’ armed standoff in Harney County.

“But what’s yet to emerge, political observers say, is a striking vision for what Brown wants to accomplish. Though she managed to push through a compromise on the minimum wage this year, she’s yet to squarely tackle the state’s pension crisis or chart a clear path toward new transportation funding.”

I had the privilege of lobbying then State Senator Kate Brown over many years at the Capitol and I always found her to be genuine and approachable. She always was ready to listen to points I made on behalf of clients and also – good news here in a sometimes perverse kind of way – was quick to say when she couldn’t see supporting my clients’ objectives.

Getting a clear answer from a legislator, even a “no” answer, is better than contending with uncertainty.

In other words, her top qualities could be described as friendliness and candor, both of which are needed in the state’s top political job, which it appears she will be able to retain in the November 8 election.

The Oregonian story prompted me to think of “the vision thing” and here, for what it’s worth, are traits I I want to see in those who say they want to lead our state and our country.

• Honesty and candor, two qualities lacking in the dispiriting run for president by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
• Ability to lead others to find middle ground, which is where public policy problems are solved, not on either the right or left extremes. Another way to put this is the ability to see contentious issues from the perspective of others, a key to finding middle ground.,
• Commitment to working to assure effective and efficient spending of public dollars, not just an appeal for more.
• Recognizing that not every problem in society can be solved by another government program — in other words, recognizing a solid balance between government and the private sector.

Do these credentials gain appeal from voters? Perhaps not. They don’t necessarily translate into sound bites or cute slogans.

But they and others like them would contribute to better government, which ought to be our goal as voters.

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.

Here’s a great sentence I wish I would have been smart enough to write:

“Good government happens at the intersection of passion and thoughtful policies.”

That was the lead in a piece by ECO Northwest CEO John Topagna wrote for the Oregonian criticizing Ballot Measure 97, the public employee-union sponsored measure that would impose a tax on sales in Oregon.

While his lead applies to Measure 97, it also could apply to any issue where passion and an intelligent effort to find middle ground could produce solid public policy.

Here is a further excerpt from the Topagna piece:

“We use our hearts and our heads to advance programs that improve our schools, deliver better health care, make our communities safer, create jobs and move families from poverty to the middle class.

“This political cycle has been long on passion and short on policy. An angry share of the electorate wants to break up banks, build walls or both. And they have no patience for white papers. Trust in major institutions is at an all-time low. Newspapers, television news, public schools, banks, big business, organized labor and Congress all poll at 30 percent or less. Veteran Oregon pollster Adam Davis likens the mood to a Category 5 hurricane.

“All this passion creates a rich environment for skilled political strategists. And how they choose to harness it — for better or for worse — will shape our future.

“The architects of Measure 97 sensed the mood long ago as they set out to design what could become one of the largest tax increases in Oregon history. Give them credit for their political instincts and polling capabilities. But absent from their team was any expertise on tax policy.  

“The result is a sloppy, incoherent ballot measure.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

Topagna says Measure 97 is built on an ill-devised gross receipts tax. It assesses a tax on the total sales price of products as they move along a supply chain — for example, from a packager to a wholesaler to a retailer to a customer. That’s called tax pyramiding, and it’s a major reason only five states have a gross receipts tax.

Measure 97 tax would apply to virtually everything that Oregonians buy or use, with no protections for low-income consumers: groceries, prescription drugs, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, clothing, health insurance, cellphone service, and most forms of entertainment. The tax could hit you a half dozen times between your bed and the morning shower: flip on the light, check your phone, open the freezer, grab the coffee, turn on the stove, feed the dog. This goes on all day long.

The non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office estimates that the measure would impose a $600 burden on a typical Oregon household, a reality which is contrary to the tripe proclaimed by advocates who say a tax would not be passed on to consumers.

I have used this blog in the past to argue that the best place to hammer out tax policy for the state is in the legislature. That may not be a popular notion because some believe the producing legislation is a lot like making sausage – ugly and not a sight for sore eyes.

But the benefit of the legislative process is that tough issues like taxes are hashed out in a committee, which includes representation from both sides of the political aisle. There is the usual push and pull as legislators and those who testify argue competing viewpoints.

The staff – professional experts in the Legislative Revenue Office – listen and analyze proposals and report publicly and dispassionately on what they find. Attorneys in the Legislative Counsel Office write the language agreed upon in committee; it is not written by some amateur out of the glare of public view. And then there is a public vote in committee, which can send a piece of legislation to the floors of both the House and Senate. Votes there determine the outcome and, if a bill passes, it goes to the governor for his or her action, which is a signature if the bill gains the governor’s approval or a veto letter if it does not.

All of this – call it sausage-making – is far better than special interests making up language at, figuratively, their kitchen table and sending the mishmash to the ballot.

That’s happened again in Oregon this time around and the result is that both sides are spending millions of dollars to advocate for votes.

The process is flawed and, if Oregonians approve Measure 97, the result will be flawed, as well.

As Topagna put it in his Oregonian piece, “revenue would slosh around in all corners of the budget, making it impossible to say what we (Oregonians) would get for the money.”

So, to guard against that stupid result, plus to hold out hope for a more reasoned look at tax reform in Oregon — yes, in the legislature — vote NO.

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.

That is a question that rises to the fore in the remarks from one Donald Trump who, again, is setting out to blame everyone but himself for the status of the presidential election, including that fact that he may well lose.

His remarks, as he himself would say, are “unshackled.” For his personal benefit, they are designed to raise questions about whether the American system is worth preserving. He would answer “no>’

For me, the question boils down to this: Is governing still possible in America? Can those we elect find the smart middle ground?

In some ways, positive compromisE is already decaying as neither side – neither the Rs or the Ds – know how to work to find answers to tough questions.

But Trump makes it worse.

If he loses, count on the fact that Trump won’t quit as he leads protests and demonstrations against Hillary Clinton. There is even the prospect of Trump-induced violence on or after election day — he has directed his supporters to monitor polling places, a recipe for conflict.

The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for president for the first time in its 125-year history and what happened — the newspaper’s management received death threats.

Trump’s legion of followers, apparently not sufficiently put off by his boasts about groping women, appear to be planning to vote for him, then, when he loses, oppose the new Clinton Administration at every turn.

In its normal expression, opposing those in office is the stuff of being the “loyal opposition.” In the extreme – Trump’s extreme – that is the stuff of “revolution.”

Read this from a Wall Street Journal editorial published on October 17:

“No presidential candidate should portray U.S. elections as illegitimate, and Mike Pence was right to say Sunday that the GOP will ‘absolutely’ abide by November’s election results. Hillary Clinton is not going to steal the White House like Lyndon Johnson stole a Texas Senate seat in 1948. Voting irregularities are real, and cheating sometimes happens, especially in machine cities, but voters should have confidence in the electoral system. There’s zero evidence that the process is compromised across multiple states and precincts.

“It is a further indication (as if we needed it) that Trump has no commitment to the American political system. He is perfectly willing to delegitimize democratic institutions as a campaign tactic, squandering a civic inheritance he does not value. Even before his current troubles, he said that an electoral loss would be prima facie evidence of fraud and encouraged supporters to monitor majority-black polling stations in Pennsylvania. Now he is entering uncharted territory. By preemptively questioning the legitimacy of his forthcoming shellacking, Trump is stepping outside the four corners of the constitutional order, on the model of autocratic strongmen he has publicly admired.

“Trump’s final appeal is also corrupting a portion of the public and crossing moral lines that won’t be easily uncrossed. There are certain qualities of heart and mind that allow for self-government — civility, tolerance and mutual respect. In his rage and ruthlessness, Trump is inviting Americans to drink from a poisoned well. One problem is the risk of physical violence — the possible influence of unhinged rhetoric on an unbalanced mind. The broader result is radical polarization in which citizens question the legitimacy of elections and view some fellow citizens as enemies.”

So, for those – me included – who hope for a return to the business of governing after the election, lose heart.

It doesn’t appear we will get there. Rather than work to find middle ground, we are in for even more polarized and divisive politics.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The Department Of Peeves is open because I, as the director, say it is. No one can overrule me.

So, here are three new pet peeves:

THE OPAQUE STATE OF OREGON BUDGETING PROCESS

Those involved at the top of this pyramid like to say that budgeting processes are transparent. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact is budgeting processes are opaque, a word that may need to be defined. The dictionary says opaque means, “not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; hard to understand; not clear or lucid.”

Exactly the case with state budgeting.

Even if you were a financial expert, you would not be able to track the whereabouts of government dollars, including the “general fund” (individual and corporate tax money), federal dollars, special purpose dollars, lottery dollars. Perhaps you could come up with some kind of over-arching estimates, but they would fail to deal with the detail which is, to go back to the word above, opaque.

This has been especially true over the years in three cases – hospital taxes, health insurance taxes, and tobacco settlement dollars. In each case, legislators took the money from those sources and directed them, at least in theory, to expanded health care and tobacco prevention programs.

Then, out of the glare of public view, legislators took other money out from behind these “new” dollars and directed the other money to K-12. In budget parlance, it’s called “supplanting.”

My view: Legislators should devise a system that is patently clear about where money comes from and where it goes. Make the process transparent, not opaque.

PROPOSING WHAT EVANGELICALS BELIEVE AND HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE IS OFFENSIVE

I write this subhead as one of that group – an evangelical, someone who has made a personal decision to follow Jesus Christ.

So, when commentators presume to tell evangelicals what they should believe and how they should vote, I shudder. That is especially true in this current, worst-in-history presidential election.

Evangelicals should make their own personal decisions about voting, not follow a crowd.

A PROBLEM WITH PROPERTY INSURANCE – PREVENTION IS NOT COVERED

If you have insurance on your home, you would think that taking action to prevent a problem would be covered, right?

Well, the answer is no.

Insurance officials say they cannot afford prevention.

I say they cannot afford not to fund prevention.

This issue came home to roost for me recently when we arranged for earthquake retrofitting for our older home. We knew we would be paying for that. But the workers found a worse problem – the foundation around a couple of our house and garage walls had eroded away, which could have caused a major, future problem, walls caving in.

We thought the fix would be covered by insurance because, if the foundation had caved, the fix would have been even more expensive.

But, the answer was no.

My reaction, as a former lobbyist, is to consider asking one of the legislators who represents me where I live to introduce a “bill for an act” that would require insurance coverage for genuine prevention actions by homeowners.

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 ask that question as I, along with many others in the country, are still recovering from the second presidential debate.

It was one for the ages — and not in a good way.  Donald Trump may have survived, but barely in light of his imploding campaign.

It deserves to implode, given his absolutely deplorable conduct, not just recently, but over the last 20 or so years of his life, if not longer. Telling the truth is not something he knows how to do. Neither is valuing people for what they are – people.

Hillary Clinton’s opponents could say similar things about her and, truth be told (pardon that phrase in this blog), Clinton has not lived up to truth as a model in her political life. It’s just that, compared to Trump, Clinton comes off nearly as a truth teller.

I could write more about the terrible character of this presidential election, but, for now, let me simply offer these quotes from the Washington Post

From Richard Cohen – Trump Declares Moral Bankruptcy

“Over the weekend, Donald Trump did what he always does when things go south for him. He walked away. He announced he is not the man at 70 he had been at 59 when he had boasted of sexual assault, and he pledged “to be a better man tomorrow.’ With that, he effectively declared moral bankruptcy, paying about a dime on the dollar of sincerity.

“It was, of course, what Trump had done six times in business, only this time the crisis was not about his finances, but his character. He had been caught talking trash about women. He has been caught boasting about committing the sort of sex crimes transit cops are always on the lookout for. He said he had hit on a married woman soon after he himself had been married. For all of that, he had ‘regret.’

“Then, like the angel he thinks he is, he took flight. He left his own body and, looking down, pronounced in his videotaped apology that the Donald Trump who said all those repugnant things, the Donald Trump who managed to break centuries of newspaper tradition against using certain words, the Donald Trump who issued a casting call for the alleged victims of Bill Clinton, the Donald Trump who often talked about women in the most despicable terms, the Donald Trump who listened to Howard Stern take apart his daughter’s physique like she was a Lego creation, the Donald Trump who went vile on Megyn Kelly and who has called women “dogs” and “pigs” and who berated a former Miss Universe for gaining weight and who made a tabloid spectacle of his extramarital affair with Marla Maples, that that Donald Trump doesn’t exist anymore. The man erased his own past.”
From George Will – Trump is the GOP’s Chemotherapy

“Today, however, Trump should stay stop the ticket for four reasons. First, he will give the nation the pleasure of seeing him join the one cohort, of the many cohorts he disdains, that he most despises — ‘losers.’ Second, by continuing to campaign in the spirit of St. Louis, he can remind the nation of the useful axiom that there is no such thing as rock bottom. Third, by persevering through Nov. 8 he can simplify the GOP’s quadrennial exercise of writing its post-campaign autopsy, which this year can be published Nov. 9 in one sentence: “Perhaps it is imprudent to nominate a venomous charlatan.” Fourth, Trump is the GOP’s chemotherapy, a nauseating but, if carried through to completion, perhaps a curative experience.”

From Michael Gerson – Republicans Deserve Their Sad Fate

“To many people outside the talk-radio hothouse, I can attest, Trump’s debate performance was appalling, contemptible, shameful, squalid, vile. Do we really want a president who views the rule of law as a means to imprison his opposition? A president who dismissed talk of sexual assault on the theory that boys will be boys? “A president who urges a foreign power to hack his opponent, then excuses that power when it is caught? A president who accuses his opponent of killing American soldiers based on a position he actually took himself.

“Trump and his advisers must know that the conservative talk-radio audience, and the Republican primary electorate, is different from a national electorate, which actually includes minorities, young people and women who don’t like disgusting boors. Perhaps Trump’s strategy was a recognition that even his strongest supporters were on the verge of bolting and needed to be appeased. Perhaps Trump’s knowledge of policy is so thin that it fills three or four minutes of a 90-minute debate and all he has left is trash talk. Or perhaps he is captive to his impulses, incapable of shame and nasty to the core.

“Whatever the explanation, Trump achieved the worst possible outcome for the GOP. He was good enough with his base to avoid a generalized revolt, and bad enough with the rest of the country to continue his slide toward major defeat.

“This sad Republican fate is deserved. It is the culmination, the fruition, of an absurdly simplistic anti-establishment attitude. The Trump campaign is what happens when you choose a presidential candidate without the taint of electoral experience — and all the past vetting that comes with it. It is what happens when you pick a candidate who has not engaged in serious public argument over a period in which his or her views and consistency can be tested. It is what happens when you embrace a candidate only on the basis of an outsider persona, who lacks actual political skills — like making a policy argument, empathizing with a voter or avoiding a constant stream of distracting gaffes.”

From the Washington Post Editorial Board – Donald Trump Unleashes a Stream of Falsehoods

Politicians lie all the time, it is sometimes said. Never before has an American politician come as close as Donald Trump has to making the saying literally true.

Despite what you may have heard at Sunday night’s presidential debate…

• Syrian refugees are vetted before they enter the country.
• Americans are taxed at lower rates than the citizens of many other developed countries.
• Trump publicly backed the Iraq War before the invasion. His claims otherwise have been repeatedly debunked.
• The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has not endorsed Mr. Trump.
• The country’s nuclear arsenal is not “exhausted.”
• The U.S. economy is growing at faster than 1 percent per year.
• There has been hacking of U.S. email accounts this election year. The U.S. intelligence community has blamed the Russian government.
• Trump did urge his Twitter followers to “check out” an alleged sex tape involving former Miss Universe Alicia Machado.
• Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the racist “birther” campaign Mr. Trump waged against President Obama.
• She did not laugh at a rape victim.
• “Clean coal” is a contradiction in terms.
• The trade deficit was not $800 billion last year.
• Clinton has not proposed admitting “hundreds of thousands” of Syrian refugees.
• She does not favor a single-payer health-care plan.
• Most health-care premiums are not spiking by “68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent.”
• The Islamic State does not control “a good chunk” of Libya’s oil.
• The North American Free Trade Agreement was not a “disaster” for jobs.
• Clinton did not order the deletion of State Department emails after they were under subpoena.
• S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens did not make 600 calls for help before dying in the September 2012 Benghazi attacks.
• The United States is not “giving” Iran $150 billion as part of the nuclear deal.
• There is no evidence “many people saw the bombs all over the apartment” of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters.
• Most African Americans do not live in bombed-out inner cities.

So does lying matter in this election?  My answer is yes. The unfortunate fact is that both Trump and Clinton have lied to advance their causes. It’s just that Clinton has lied less and, given that, I intend to cast my vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils.

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.

In one of my last blogs, I said “enough,” a reference to the fact that Donald Trump still thinks he can fool all of us with the absurd notion that he can be President of the United States.

After what has happened over the last couple days, is there any need to underline the reality that he is unfit for office – any office?

Probably not.

This from Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer:

“In nominating Donald Trump, the Republican Party has asked the people of the United States to entrust their future to a man who insults women, mocks the handicapped, urges that dissent be met with violence, seeks to impose religious tests for entry into the United States, and applies a de facto ethnicity test to judges. He offends our allies and praises dictators. His public statements are peppered with lies. He belittles our heroes and insults the parents of men who have died serving our country. Every day brings a fresh revelation that highlights the unacceptable danger in electing him to lead our nation.”

The fact that news has just emerged about Trump’s incredibly offensive comments about and toward women only serves to illustrate the point: It is time for Trump to quit and leave the turf to vice presidential candidate Mike Pence who, himself, is aghast at Trump’s comments.

Or, perhaps Pence, a good man, will have to quit the ticket.

Or, failing either of these alternatives, is it past time for American voters to give the election to Democrat Hillary Clinton because there is no other option?

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 a voter, it is hard for me to believe that Donald Trump is still alive in the current presidential race.

He must take all of us for fools as he continues to illustrate that he does not have the temperament or the intellectual capacity to function in the nation’s highest political office.

I say enough!

Consider what has happened in the last week or so after some Trump supporters said he would get his act together after a woeful debate performance. He simply showed his true colors.

In the middle of the night – actually at about 3 a.m. in the morning – he wrote a tweet indicating, again, his true feelings about women as objects. He said a beauty pageant contestant, Alicia Machado, was too fat and actually had appeared in a sex tape video. Why does he focus on such, thus detracting from the kind of comments that could attract more voters to him?

I say enough!

It’s not just, as some of my friends contend, that media elites are out to get Trump and, thus, don’t treat him fairly. As a former reporter, all you have to do to illustrate Trump’s true colors is to quote him.

I usually don’t agree with E J. Dionne, a Washington Post columnist who tends most of the time to veer left. But, this time, he was on the mark in what he wrote over the weekend:

“This (the Trump performance in his early morning tweets) should be a wake-up call to political analysts who have gone out of their way since Trump announced his candidacy to pretend that he was the ingenious creator of a political special sauce who deserved our respect for ‘speaking his mind.’ No, Trump all along has been a clinically self-involved con man who never took the issues, the presidency or the future of our country seriously. Can there be any doubt that his campaign is a branding exercise gone, quite literally, mad?

“The answer is that this episode should finally force everyone to say: Enough. Trump is neither normal nor stable. He is manifestly dangerous to our country and erratic in everything except his unrestrained meanness. He should not be given fifth, sixth and seventh chances. He has shown us who he is. We should believe what we see.”

I say enough!

And, if that means, for me, a vote for Hillary Clinton, so be 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.

One important reality has struck me as all of us, as voters, are enduring one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in history.

It is this: We are living in what Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts calls “a post-factual society.”

Facts don’t seem to matter. It is, rather, what you happen to believe and, if a falsehood is uttered repeatedly, it becomes a new fact.

The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson put it more directly in the aftermath of the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He said Trump “inhabits his own factual universe.”

More from Gerson:

“It is not surprising that Trump inhabits his own factual universe, in which truth is determined by usefulness and lies become credible through repetition. What made the first presidential debate extraordinary — really, unprecedented — was not the charges that Trump denied, but the ones he confirmed.

“When Hillary Clinton claimed he didn’t pay any federal income taxes in a couple of years, Trump said: “That makes me smart.” When Clinton accused Trump of defrauding a contractor out of money he was owed, Trump responded: “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.” When Clinton criticized Trump for casual misogyny and for calling women “pigs,” Trump brought up Rosie O’Donnell and said, “She deserves it.” When Clinton recalled a Justice Department lawsuit against Trump alleging housing discrimination, he dismissed it as “just one of those things.”

“When Clinton attacked Trump for coddling the Russians, Trump attempted to excuse them of hacking, shifting the blame toward obese computer geeks. When Clinton accused Trump of betraying U.S. allies, Trump answered: “We defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us. . . . We cannot protect countries all over the world, where they’re not paying us what we need.” Rather than affirming the importance of NATO, or reassuring our Pacific partners — the easy and expected answer — Trump reduced the United States’ global role to a protection racket, run by a seedy executive who admits to cheating contractors when he is “unsatisfied with [their] work.”

“During the debate, the points scored against Trump were damaging. But the points he ceded would disqualify any normal politician, in any normal presidential year.”

In this strange political year, one more trend seems to be clear. It is that many voters assess the environment differently than political commentators or the so-called “political elite” (which, I guess, includes me, given my long career as a lobbyist).

When it comes to Trump, seeing him in a positive light is incredible given what he has said about women, about minorities, about the disabled, about the parents of a slain U.S. solder. He is so self-absorbed as to be comical. Nearly everyone response to every question resolves around “I did this” or “I did that.” Nary a word about those who be affected by his buffoonery.

I cannot him with his finger on the nuclear trigger. As the Arizona Republic wrote the other day in its first endorsement of a Democrat in 126 years, “the president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.”

Normally, such over-the-top statements as Trump has made would disqualify someone from running for president.

But facts don’t matter. Trump supporters don’t seem to care about what he has said and done, or appear to believe that facts about his lack of character have been planted by the anti-Trump media elites.

But, if facts matter – and they do – the choice is between two evils. If I have to make it, my choice will be Clinton, more a vote of resignation than enthusiasm…and one based on facts.

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.

Well, who won the first Presidential debate?

The answer, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you were in favor of Donald Trump before the debate, you are probably still in his corner.

If you were for Hillary Clinton before the debate, you are probably still there.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Joseph Rago emphasized this week, voters tend to come away with different impressions from such a debate as this than do political professionals – or even, like me, retired political operatives…read lobbyists.

Moreover, I think most debates are terrible ways for voters to gather or make impressions on candidates. Many people watch for the pithy quote or the smart rejoinder. Others watch for the gaffe. Call them “zingers. Hill.com joined the fray this morning by emphasizing what it called the five best zingers, but frankly, none of them will rank with past memorable lines.

Neither the quote or the gaffe tell us much about what we, as voters, need to know about how a candidate would handle the demands of the nation’s highest political office, one that matters to the entire “free world,” as well as the “unfree world” (if that is a phrase).

Debates don’t have much to do with the serious business of governing.

As a voter, I’d rather than take my time to assess a candidate’s overall credentials instead of relying on 90 minutes of made-for-TV hype.

For me, the debate allowed Clinton to reinforce her theme that she is qualified to be president and has the experience for the job. Experience, she would say, matters in a position where “on-the-job” training could be a disaster.

On the other hand, Trump managed, through awkward and bolloxed-up language, to reiterate that he is the choice for change. Put another way, if you want four more years of the Obama Administration, vote for Clinton.

Back to my main point. I think neither candidate moved the needle much in their direction. So, besides all the other information available to us as voters, there will be two more presidential debates, plus one for the vice presidents, before the time comes to cast a ballot in this “choice between evils” election.

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.

Political commentator Elizabeth Drew asked and answered that question in a piece that ran in the Washington Post over the weekend. Here is a summary of her view:

“The debates test qualities that have virtually nothing to do with governing. Governing requires thoughtfulness, study, depth, patience, the ability to draw the most useful information out of advisers and arrive at the wisest policy.

I agree with her.

Here is a further excerpt of what she wrote as we sit on the cusp of a presidential debate Monday that may set viewership records, even if, as Drew contends, it contributes almost nothing to the process of governing.

“Consider the qualities that enabled John F. Kennedy to prevent the discovery that the Soviets had stationed nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba from escalating into a calamity. During that tense showdown, Kennedy most definitely didn’t utilize his considerable wit and zealously avoided publicly humiliating Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

“Yet employing wit and one-upping an opponent are the two qualities most prized in the debates.

“Worst of all, the supposedly most important thing that happens in a debate is a candidate delivering an effective one-liner. Now, we all know, or should know, that the one-liner has most likely been proposed by the candidate’s advisers and that it has been rehearsed. It has all the spontaneity of a can of tuna. And it has nothing to do with governing.

“It’s nice if a president is clever, but that’s not required. Yet the night usually goes to the deliverer of the best one-liner. It’s what is most anticipated and most remembered.

“Actually, the first televised presidential debates, between Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were nearly devoid of one-liners. Now they’re the be-all and end-all of the encounter. What a weird way to decide who should be president.

“Probably the most famous one-liner in modern debates was challenger Ronald Reagan’s saying to President Jimmy Carter in 1980, “There you go again.” Carter was raising a real issue: Reagan’s opposition to Medicare and Social Security when he was governor of California.

“No matter — that one sentence blew any discussion of those issues away. Reagan also scored the runner-up: his attempt, on seeking reelection in 1984, to dispatch questions about his mental acuity after one of his responses during the previous debate wandered down the Pacific highway. Reagan dealt with this potential block to a second term by saying of his nearly two-decade-younger challenger, former vice president Walter Mondale, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

The line I remember also was one of the best. Uttered by then Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, it skewered his opponent, Dan Quayle, with a line that said: “I knew Jack Kennedy and you are no Jack Kennedy.”

But, to follow up on Drew’s piece, that is the very problem with debates as measures of someone’s ability to serve in the nation’s highest political office. It’s a horse-race mentality, one that doesn’t contribute much to a perspective about which candidate actually deserves to win on the merits of his or her ability to perform.

Here’s the way Bryan Garsten, professor of political science and the humanities at Yale University, put in a piece for the Wall Street Journal:

“Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, ‘Vote for me’? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.

“The American Presidency is too great an office to be subjected to the indignity of this technique. Though the televised debates returned and eventually became a regular part of the campaign, it is hard to think of even one that stands out as a model of informed and informative discourse.”

Garsten and Drew make very good points. My response will be to listen or watch the coming debates, but work hard to avoid what is natural – focusing only on the smart line or unintended gaffe.

I’ll work to find the kind of substance that can contribute to a reasoned vote come November.