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

Those who know me know that I like words and try my best to use them correctly, not always perfectly though that is my goal.

So, two stories in national publications caught my attention in the last couple days.

• An essayist for the Wall Street Journal, Joseph Epstein, showed up recently with a story about hackneyed words that have outlived their usefulness.
• A Columbia University linguist, John McWhorter, according to the Washington Post, published a witty book entitled, “Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words.”

It was good for me to read both stories because they called to mind two issues for me – words I often use that have become hackneyed and the trouble with knowing what pronouns to use these days.

Here is the introduction to what Epstein wrote under this headline:  “The Incredibly Massive Number of Hackneyed Words Is Surreal; Overused, meaningless phrases fall out of fashion:

“A hackneyed phrase is one characterized by its unoriginality, overuse and, not least, imprecision.  The air seems filled with such phrases just now.

“Consider how the often-used word ‘focused’ has taken on the adjective ‘laser,’ to become the fully hackneyed ‘laser-focused.’  Not all hackneyed language comes in full phrases; some single words also qualify. How they catch on remains a bit of a mystery but catch on they do.  ‘Incredible,’ you might say.

“You might say it, that is, if you have no ear for language and don’t mind sounding like everyone else who currently avails himself of this hackneyed word.  Incredible, a synonym for unbelievable or surpassing belief, has become the hackneyed word of the day.  The word has a hackneyed history.”

For me, there also are words I use too often.  And my wife often points them out.  Good for her.  Bad for me.

I won’t bore you here with my hackneyed words and phrases because, you see, I would have to use them again to outline them.  Not worth it, but, upon reflection, here are two:

• “In the category of more than you may want to know…”
• And, when I play golf and someone asks me how I am, I often answer, “I am on the right side of the turf.”

As for the book on pronouns, here is how the Washington Post characterized it:

“Back when McWhorter started his book, the subject must have sounded a bit abstruse, but in a weird coincidence with reactionary politics, pronouns now feel hotter than climate change.  After Trump’s executive order ‘Restoring Biological Truth,’ government employees were ordered to scrub pronouns from their email signatures.  Suddenly, ‘they’ could get you fired.

“’To mess with our pronouns,’ McWhorter writes, ‘is to mess with our sense of the order of things, what’s up and what’s down — life itself.’  We’re naturally possessive about our pronouns. But he acknowledges early on, ‘My positions on these matters do not stem from any ‘conservatism’ with which I am sometimes associated.’  Indeed, he’s a descriptive linguist, a scholar interested in observing the evolution of language, not railing against its perceived misuses.”

For me on this issue, I have continued to encounter it over the years I was in government and as lobbyist, and even now as volunteer.  Especially in the case of women.

Do they want to be called “she, her, or they” – though the latter sounds bad to me, if not, at least, awkward.  On this, I’ll just continue to muddle through and use the pronoun for a woman that woman wants me to use – if, of course, they tell.  I also don’t want to make a mistake that comes back to bite me.

So, there you have it – two issues about words. 

To write about this, I could have opened one of five departments I run as director, the Department of Words Matter.  But I chose simply to write about the words, not open the department because I, like Elon Musk, am cutting my form of government.

Happy reading and make your own decisions about overused words and the proper use of pronouns.

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

If I were a Democrat, I’d be looking for ways to oppose Donald Trump and his ilk by trying to build relationships with all those – especially all Democrats, as well as some Republicans – who cannot stomach Trump.

The notion above is stupid because I am a registered Independent who wants this country, in politics, to get back to something other than Trump hucksterism.

Hill.com reports that Democrats may have found one way to get off the ground.  It is to capitalize on what has come to be called “Signal-Gate,” the process by which Trump’s so-called national security experts discussed war plans over an insecure group chat line. 

And, not only that – they unwittingly invited a journalist, Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, to participate on the call.

[By the way, I have called this “Chat-Gate” in previous blogs, not “Signal-Gate,” but know this – either works, using the Watergate moniker, to call attention to something hugely stupid, if not criminal.]

It also is possible that today, given what Trump did to impose huge tariffs that are roiling all world economies, the Ds will have a new edge.  As tariffs increase prices and slam the stock market, give Trump all the credit – read, debit – he deserves.

Here is how hill.com started its story mentioned above:

“Democrats and their embattled Senate Leader Chuck Schumer have received a welcome change to rebound amid the controversy surrounding the Signal group chat that entangled a number of Trump Cabinet members over the past week.

“Signal-Gate, in which a journalist was inadvertently included in a Trump administration group chat that included sensitive information about a military strike against the Houthis in Yemen, effectively served as a reprieve for Schumer.

“Instead of being besieged by questions about Democrat divisions — and Schumer’s vote to advance a GOP funding bill — the week was dominated by queries of how The Atlantic’s editor in chief ended up getting invited by Trump’s national security adviser to a group chat that included Vice President Vance and other top officials.

“GOP senators were the ones fending off questions over why the Trump team, including officials traveling overseas, were discussing sensitive information on Signal, while Democrats were the ones going on offense.”

So, back to my question – what should Democrats do now to capitalize on their “good fortune,” if it could be called that?

Three thoughts.

• First, don’t let Signal-Gate or Chat-Gate die a merciful death.  Continue trying to hold Trump and Republicans responsible for this national security debacle, given the huge importance of this step that risked American military lives, as well as the U.S. standing in the world.  And, continue to do this as new evidence emerges that those who participated in Chat-Gate are also using routine e-mail structures to share information that should be kept secret.
• Second, find a way to be FOR something, not just AGAINST something.  [This was advice I gave to my lobby clients who often didn’t like proposals at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, but I suggested that opposition wasn’t enough.  Advocacy in favor of proposals also was critical.]
• Third, don’t protest Trump, for all that does in infuse him with more instinct to go even farther.

Just wait him out.

It’s difficult to know how to engage in political discourse in regard to Trump.  He doesn’t play in the normal way, contending only for his point-of-view and never being willing to negotiate for smart solutions.

With him, it’s always his way or the highway.  And, if persons are hurt because of his actions, he doesn’t want to know, and he doesn’t care.  He always blames others.

So, at base, again I say wait him out in the hope – a realistic one, I think – that all the ways Trump and his ilk are setting out to hurt people will come home to roost, making him what he is, a pariah.

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

Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose the idiotic idea that Donald Trump could run for a third term.

Of course, after zero analysis, he has suggested he has “methods” for seeking a third term.

Constitutional law scholars are at least skeptical, if not opposed.  The headline on this blog makes that point strongly.

The Washington Post performed a service by writing a detailed story on the idea of a third term because Trump, with bombast and dishonesty, has started talking about it.

And, goodness knows, he is not more than a few months into his second term, which, under U.S. Constitution, should be his last.

Here is how the Post started its story:

“… Trump has suggested that ‘methods’ exist by which he could attempt to serve a third term in the White House, an act that is barred by the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“’I’m not joking,’ Trump said, in a Sunday interview with NBC News, when asked to clarify speculative comments on the possibility.

“Constitutional scholars say any third run for the presidency would violate both the spirit and the letter of the amendment, which was passed after World War II as a protection against ‘elective monarchy.’”

The 22nd Amendment explicitly prohibits any president from seeking more than two terms, either in consecutive or non-consecutive sequence.  It states:  “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and became part of the Constitution in 1951, when it was fully ratified by the states.

So, what could Trump do to stay in office?

• First, as was the case as his first term ended, he could just stay in office, even to the extent of fomenting a riot at the Capitol as he did last time.  Could something be done to oppose this?  Perhaps, but look at last time and hold your breath.
• Second, he and his acolytes could contend that the 22^nd Amendment bars three “consecutive” terms and his first and second were separated by four years out of office.  Scholars say this won’t fly, but what scholars say won’t stop Trump.
• Third, some of his supporters have suggested that someone like J.D. Vance could run for president with Trump in the vice president slot and then, if he won, Vance would resign, leaving Trump as president.  Scholars also say this won’t fly.
• Fourth, the most direct route for Trump would involve repealing the 22^nd amendment.  But the Washington Post says it would be a “painstaking and likely lengthy process that would require the passage of another amendment.  Proposed amendments must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.”  Not likely.

From the Post, back to what Trump has said about three terms and reasons why he has said it.

“He has repeatedly floated the possibility that he could run for a third term — although previously couched it in more indirect terms.  In 2019, he suggested in a social media post that his supporters might ‘demand’ it.  In February, he again raised the prospect by asking the attendees of a White House reception whether they would support him running for a third term.

“Over the weekend, Trump made among his most direct public comments to date about the prospect — directly referencing the question of how he could seek a third term and insisting he was not joking.

“In a phone interview with NBC News’s Kristen Welker, he suggested that there were plans in circulation to enable him to run for a third term.  ‘A lot of people want me to do it,’ he said.”

Well, don’t count me as one of those “a lot of people.”

One reason why Trump raised this again over the last few days is that his action diverts from the adverse effects of his economic policies – especially huge tariffs – that threaten various economies, especially the one in the U.S.

Again, Trump says whatever happens to pop into his mind and, thereby, controls media coverage.

Late night TV hosts had a field day with the three-term issue.

One comment came from Jimmy Fallon:  “And, finally, Trump ’28:  If You Vote for Me, I’ll Add You to the Top-Secret Group Chat.”

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

The latest edition of Links Magazine came up with an interesting list this week – the longest par 3 holes in championship pro golf.

Based on the summary that appears below, I would not have remembered the extreme length of many of these holes, though I have seen them on TV over the years.

For me, an amateur golfer – perhaps better described as a “recreational golfer” – many of these holes should be par 4s, not par 3s.

The course where I play most of my golf, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, has four par 3s, but none measure huge distances, though from deep tees, one gets to 221 yards (and a former pro at “my” course said he carried a special golf club just for that hole).

• Hole 5/155 yards-120, depending on the tee you choose to play
• Hole 9/221 yards-169
• Hole 13/172 yards-140
• Hole 17/182 yards-138

So, even for me, these distances are manageable, though, at my advanced age, I don’t often play the deep tees, choosing to abide by Jack Nicklaus’ advice, which is to “play it forward.”

For contrast to where I play most of my golf, consider these the following huge par 3s identified by Links Magazine, with, first, this introduction:

“Par 3 holes don’t have to be long to play tough.  Just look at the blood that was shed in the 2024 Open Championship at Royal Troon’s celebrated 8th hole, the Postage Stamp, where 123 yards and a necklace of deep pot bunkers were all that was needed to make the world’s top players dial 911.

“Or the annual drama at Golden Bell, the 12th hole at Augusta National, which only stretches to 155 yards, but has drowned the dreams of many a Green Jacket hopeful in Rae’s Creek.  Those holes, and others like them, are plenty difficult without being long.

“But there’s another species of par 3 — the kind where a combination of brute length and accuracy over distance are required to escape them unscathed.

“Nine of the 10 longest of these major championship holes are from U.S. Open venues — as if brutal rough and hardpan greens aren’t enough to identify the world’s best player.  The other top-10-longest par three plagued players at a PGA Championship.

“Across the pond, prospective Champion Golfers of the Year have had to face several long one-shotters, too.  Masters contestants have had to do battle with just one truly lengthy par 3, but as we all know, danger takes many forms at Augusta.

“It should be noted that along with length, each of the holes on this list have other features that add to their difficulty.  Dastardly bunkers.  Greens with false fronts and/or steep fall-offs.  Slick putting surfaces where saving par from 10 feet is a magician’s trick.”

Now, the list:

• Oakmont Country Club, 8th Hole—300 yards 
• Los Angeles Country Club (North), 11th Hole—297 yards
• Los Angeles Country Club (North), 7th Hole—284 yards
• Merion Golf Club (East), 3rd Hole—256 yards
• The Olympic Club (Lake), 3rd Hole—256 yards
• Valhalla Golf Club, 14th Hole—254 yards
• Merion Golf Club (East), 17th Hole—254 yards
• Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, 2nd Hole—252 yards
• Chambers Bay, 15th Hole—252 yards 
• Erin Hills, 6th Hole—252 yards
• Carnoustie Golf Links, 16th Hole—248 yards
• Royal Troon Golf Club, 17th Hole—242 yards
• Augusta National Golf Club, 4th Hole—240 yards 
• Royal Portrush Golf Club (Dunluce), 16th Hole—236 yards

So, if you are a recreational golfer like me, take your driver to play these holes or others like them.  Or, just go to the forward tees.

Plus, this footnote.  When you hit a golf ball on a par 3, do you tee it up or play it off the ground?

Golf Digest says this:

“On a par 3 hole, using a tee provides an extra 5-12 yds depending, of course, on the club.”

And, no less an authority than Jack Nicklaus always advises using a tee when you can, on any drive.  That will guarantee you get a good lie.

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

These days, when the word “gate” is attached as a suffix, it’s because there is a controversy, political or otherwise.

Remember Watergate?

On that occasion, “gate” was the last few letters in the name of the building where Richard Nixon’s staff committed a political burglary that has gone down in history – for reasons that it was so bad.

This time, “Chat-Gate” refers to the incredibly stupid decision by Donald Trump sycophants to include a journalist in a chat over an insecure line about plans to bomb Yemen.  Two problems:  The first is that national security and military lives were threatened by Trump clowns using the insecure line; the second is that a journalist, inadvertently it was contended, was included.

Thus, I and others are using the term “Chat-Gate” – shorthand which is easier than describing the Trump staff’s stupidity.

The Washington Post performed a service this weekend by going behind the scenes to describe the conduct by the journalist involved in “Chat-Gate,” Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic Magazine whose positive reputation is clear and decisive.

That’s another fact I appreciate about “Chat-Gate” – it is the account of the brilliance and maturity of a journalist whose conduct brings credit to that craft.

For this blog, as is sometimes the case for me, a story in a national publication – this time the Style section of the Washington Post – is so good that I choose to reprint it in its entirety.

*********

HOW THE ATLANTIC’S JEFFREY GOLDBERG MADE NOISE WITH A SIGNAL SCOOP

The Trump administration tried to paint the veteran journalist as a liar, so he felt compelled to prove them wrong — and he had the receipts.

The world might never have gotten the whole story.

There would have been no details of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confiding to the “Houthi PC Small Group” his minute-by-minute plan:  “TIME NOW (1144et):  Weather is FAVORABLE.  Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”

No precise details about what was to happen at “1215et,” the moment when “F-18s LAUNCH.”  Or that it would be “1536” when the “F-18 2nd Strike Starts.”  Or that in the exact same moment the “first sea-based Tomahawks” would launch.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of Atlantic magazine, had already decided to keep such details secret, because he already had written a story that, on its face, would be shocking enough:  Bizarrely, Goldberg found himself earlier this month inadvertently included in a chat group on Signal — an encrypted but potentially vulnerable commercially available messaging app — with Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance and the national security and foreign policy heads of the Trump administration.  Rather than communicate via secure government channels, the team discussed plans to kill suspected terrorists in Yemen in a March 15 strike.

With Goldberg reading along, not quite believing his eyes.

In his article, Goldberg laid out how he’d been inadvertently invited to join the Signal group by national security adviser Michael Waltz, where plans for the attack were being discussed.  At first, he explained in his article, he thought the invitation was a hoax.

But he became convinced that it was the real thing when the attack took place just as it had been discussed in the Signal group.  He watched the discussion in real-time as the attack was happening on a Saturday afternoon, Washington time, while he was sitting in his car at a grocery store.  (Because no detail about Goldberg’s reporting now seems too small, people have asked which grocery store, he said. It was the Safeway on Connecticut Avenue NW, near Chevy Chase.)

Goldberg’s article was about how government officials had been recklessly talking about sensitive matters on Signal rather than via secure government channels.  In writing his piece, Goldberg held back much of the text thread, and did not reveal some details and specific wording related to the types of military equipment involved and the times they would be deployed.

That might have been it.  A scoop for the ages, and another win for the Atlantic, which in recent years has piled up journalism awards, including its first Pulitzers, lured top talent from competing publications and become an essential read for both Beltway insiders and the general public.

Error! Filename not specified.But within hours of the story’s publication (headline: “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans”) the White House started diminishing and rebutting Goldberg. Hegseth complained Monday to reporters that “nobody was texting war plans.” The next day, Tulsi Gabbard — Trump’s director of national intelligence — testified in a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing that she didn’t recall specific weapons being mentioned.

By Wednesday morning, Goldberg had had enough.  He decided it was in the public interest to prove them wrong. He published the entire text chain.  (He did, however, hold out the name of a CIA officer at the agency’s request.)

“The impetus for publishing the full text chain was that the administration said we were lying about the texts, about the nature of the text and about the texts themselves,” Goldberg said Thursday in an interview with The Washington Post.  “And so obviously that presented us with kind of a dilemma.  I wasn’t looking to publish these, but if the president and his people are going to take the position that we are lying about this and that this somehow has to do with my character or the character of the Atlantic, I felt compelled to respond.”

James Fallows — a former White House speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter, prolific author and former Atlantic colleague of Goldberg — calls the Signal reporting “a remarkable journalistic coup,” not just because of the information it revealed, but also because of the way Goldberg and the Atlantic handled the complexities of the situation.

“Jeff was very, very careful the first time about not revealing anything that might be sensitive,” Fallows told The Post.  “And then when sort of faced with what appears to have been an avalanche of lies from administration officials, he brought out the actual text and was in position to say, ‘Well, actually,’ and, to prove it.”

It was the kind of reporting that students should study to learn a lesson in the value of patient journalism, David Boardman, a former executive editor of the Seattle Times who is now the dean of Temple University’s school of media and communication, said.

“It is a unique moment in American history,” Boardman said of Goldberg’s reporting.  “This story is a great demonstration of why legitimate, fact-based, thoughtful, careful, informed journalism matters.”

Goldberg’s reporting has led to calls for investigations by Democrats.

Representative Jerry Nadler (New York) called for Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who testified before the Senate committee on Tuesday that no classified information was discussed, to be prosecuted for perjury.

Amid the clamor, Republicans have sought to undercut Goldberg’s credibility.  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that the report was a “hoax” written by a “Trump-hater.”

“If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well,” Leavitt said at the White House press briefing Wednesday.  “And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg.”

Leavitt has sought to convince Americans that the Atlantic has been walking back or softening some of its story because its first piece used the term “war” plans; its second story used the term “attack” plans.  Goldberg said he was doing no such thing.  In fact, he said, “attack” plans are even more damning because they include specific information, such as the details disclosed in the Signal chat about the types of planes and the timeline.

“Let me be blunt,” Goldberg said.  “They didn’t have much in the way of credible response options to the text.  So they came up with this semantic game. All right. You know, I think most intelligent people can see through it.”

Goldberg knew he was onto something big with the Signal story, but even he couldn’t imagine the impact it had this week.  Perhaps, he said, it resonates because so many of us know what it’s like to accidentally text the wrong person.

“I mean, obviously not everybody is talking to each other about bombing Yemen,” he said.  “But yes, in one sense it’s relatable.  In one sense, it’s extremely not relatable.”

Trump has defended the officials in the Signal group, dismissing the controversy as a “witch hunt” and calling Goldberg “a sleazebag.”

Error! Filename not specified.

That word — sleazebag. Goldberg has heard it before.

In September 2020, two months before Trump lost his bid for re-election, Goldberg published a much-read article about Trump describing U.S. soldiers who died in World War II as “losers” and “suckers.”  Trump said it wasn’t true and called Goldberg a “sleazebag.”

New Yorker magazine editor David Remnick described Trump’s remarks in an interview with The Post this week as part of a “continuing playbook.”

“These are the tenets of Roy Cohn that were passed down to Donald Trump and that everybody around him practices, which are never apologize, never admit a mistake. And, you know, try to smear the messenger,” Remnick told The Post, referencing the notorious McCarthy-era lawyer who was a mentor to Trump when he was young.  “This is a very familiar playbook. And not just in this country. And you see it in incipient or aspiring autocracies around the world.”

Goldberg said he is unfazed by the verbal attacks.

“It means nothing to me,” he said.  “These attacks are designed to get people to stop probing and asking questions … that’s why it’s important to double down on accountability journalism in times like these.”

Goldberg, 59, began his career as a police reporter at The Post.  Known for his tenacious reporting and deep sourcing, he would later serve as New York bureau chief for the Forward and as a Washington and Middle East correspondent under Remnick at the New Yorker.

He also worked as a guard at the largest prison camp in Israel in 1990, and wrote the book “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror,” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He joined the Atlantic in 2007 as a national correspondent and became its editor in chief in 2016.  While trying to persuade Goldberg to leave the New Yorker, the Atlantic’s then-owner, David Bradley, sent ponies to Goldberg’s home to entertain his children.  The magazine has been majority-owned by Emerson Collective, an organization led by entrepreneur and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, since 2017.

The Atlantic is that rare publication that seems to have found a way to marry digital and print success.  It surpassed 1 million subscriptions in 2024 and reached profitability; it now has more than 1.15 million subscribers, a 14.7 per cent increase year-over-year, according to an Atlantic spokeswoman.  It also announced in October that it would be adding two more print issues yearly, the first time in 20 years that it has published monthly (which used to be part of its name until 2004).

When the Atlantic announced its print expansion, Goldberg outlined a new direction for the staff:  “One new initiative I would like to share with you today,” he wrote then, “is a dramatic new commitment to report stories at the intersection of national defense, technology, and global conflict.”

His Signal group mega-scoop landed exactly at that intersection.  And he makes no apologies for that.

“Michael Waltz can label me a loser if he wants,” Goldberg said.  “But at least I know how to text.”

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

Another way to put it for this blog:

Trump says, “I am always innocent.”

In the current controversy, which, in shorthand, I am labeling “chat-gate,” Trump should have apologized for the stupid conduct of those who worked for him, fired a couple of them – including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth – and then tried to move on.

Chat-gate was not just stupid.  It was conduct risking American lives.  And, yesterday, several military pilots – they declined for their names to be used, fearing reprisals from Trump – said chat-gate risked their lives.

But no.

Trump claims innocence which anyone with half a brain could see was a terrible risk to the nation’s security.

He always practices the “blame game,” which comes very naturally to him. 
For his own misdeeds, as well as those of his cronies.

So, why do I write about this again?  Well, first, I don’t believe adding my single voice will change the direction.  But, I hope chat-gate does not simply go away because Trump and company ignore it – and, for me, I won’t let it go away.

In the Wall Street Journal this morning columnist Peggy Noonan agrees:   “The Signal mess is a real mess, not something that will fade away quickly, because it’s one of those scandals that give the world a picture of a new administration.”

In the New York Times, Jill Filipovic, a journalist, lawyer and author, put it this way:

“…The mother lode of hypocrisy.  After the Trump administration denied that any classified material was shared in the group chat, The Atlantic published the conversation nearly in full, redacting only the name of a C.I.A. employee.  If the story was bad before, it’s now worse.  And one thing is clear:  In Trumpworld, the rules often — maddeningly — seem to apply only to other people.”

As I said, I, for one, hope this controversy persists.

Why?  Too much is at stake for it to be dropped, as in:

• Military officials who are put in harms way by the goofballs running the nation’s national security and military systems, including going to war.
• Other countries are not be able to rely on U.S. conduct with shenanigans such as this, for fear their own secrets will be shared with the world.
• The Department of Defense, a critical federal agency, will not be well run until the TV host Hegseth heads out the door.

In today’s Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank says this:

“We have seen entirely too much cowering and capitulation in the face of Trump’s threats:  By the Paul Weiss law firm and Columbia University, by Meta and much of Silicon Valley, by Big Pharma and other industries, by mostly supine congressional Republicans, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (in the eyes of many on the left), and by media outlets.

“But in a crisis, courage can be found in unexpected places.  This is why it’s heartening to see some on the right (beyond the usual never-Trumpers) beginning to speak out about Trump’s overreach.  We might be seeing the first cracks in MAGA unity, which Trump has maintained by threats and fear.”

I hope Milbank is right, though hope is all most of us have in the face of Trump.

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

………This follows a blog I wrote yesterday indicating that national security – including wars – under Trump are being run by a bunch of clowns………

For those of us who have been critical of Donald Trump and his cronies, it would be possible to relish the current “signal chat” controversy.

But too much is at stake to dwell on relishing.

Members of the military could have been at risk because of what Trump’s cronies did.  They could be if there is a next time.  And, countries around the world are being repelled by the controversy, including the derision sparked by Vice President J.D. Vance.

But, at least, what happened showed that Trump, Pete Hegseth, the Department of Defense secretary, and their cronies are not up to the jobs they have.

More and more observers know it.

Hegseth, through national security adviser Michael Waltz, unwittingly invited a journalist into a private chat about the coming war in Yemen – a so-called “private chat” over a mechanism that was not secret.

Then, he contended said later that nothing classified was included on the call.

Rubbish.

The journalist on the call was none other than Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of Atlantic Magazine, who has been very critical of Trump and company.

When Trump’s cronies said nothing was classified, Goldberg proved them wrong.  He released more of what he heard on the call.

From the Atlantic:

“At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”

“The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et):  Weather is FAVORABLE.  Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”  Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East.

“The Hegseth text continues:

• “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
• “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”

“Let us (Atlantic writers) pause here for a moment to underscore a point.  This Signal message shows that the U.S. Secretary of Defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone — at 11:44 a.m.

“This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi ‘Target Terrorist,’ was expected to be killed by these American aircraft.

“If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests — or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media — the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds.

“The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.

“The Hegseth text then continued:

• “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
• “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
• “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
• “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
• “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
• “Godspeed to our Warriors.”

“Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”

“At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa:  “VP. Building collapsed.  Had multiple positive ID.  Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.

“Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC.  The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.

“Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz’s message, wrote, “What?”

“At 2 p.m., Waltz responded:  “Typing too fast.  The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

“Vance responded a minute later:  “Excellent.”  Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji.  

“The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.

“Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted:  “CENTCOM was/is on point.”  

Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing.  “Great job all.  More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow.  But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”

There!

As The Atlantic said – make your own decision.  To anyone with a brain, even if not experienced, what was discussed was classified war planning.

And, meanwhile, what about Trump?  Well, no surprise, he holds no one accountable in his administration and proceeds to blame The Atlantic.

In the Atlantic, staff writer Tom Nichols put it this way:

“National security is not a joke, but the irresponsible attempts of Trump’s top officials to evade responsibility for a major security breach have become so surreal that they’re comical.”

But be sure of this:  Nichols and others are not laughing at this travesty.

Then, late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel said this:

Regarding Hegseth, “Who could have ever guessed that the host of ‘Weekend Fox and Friends’ would be bad at running the military?”

Enough!

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

I have mixed emotions about writing about this because I am not sure I can add anything to the “open chat debate” that is roiling the federal government in D.C., as well as countries around the world.

Still, I persist because, every once in a while, something happens that is too much to pass up.

This time, it’s that Pete Hegseth, the director of the Department of Defense and his allies in the country’s national security administration, have no idea what they’re doing.

They proved it with the “open chat.”

Hegseth and company included a journalist in a group on-line chat as officials talked about what, by any standard, should have been secret plans for the United States to bomb Yemen.  In other words, on an open line, they talked about war.

To make matters worse for Hegseth, the journalist was none other than Jeff Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic magazine who has been very critical of Trump and allies like Hegseth.

Can you imagine what Goldberg thought as, all of a sudden, he was added to the list of those included in the group chat?

On one hand, as a journalist, he couldn’t imagine a better result – an inside look at military planning. 

On the other hand, he couldn’t contain his worry about this approach to violate state secrets in a way that could have put members of the American military in harm’s way.

In the Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank put it this way:

“Since the report about top national security figures in the Trump administration sharing war plans with a journalist in a group text chat, the reaction has properly focused on the astonishing security breach.  But beyond the intelligence lapse that led the Trump aides to provide the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg with the targets, weapons and timing of forthcoming military strikes in Yemen, the contents of the Signal chat make it plain for the world to see what our allies feared and our foes hoped:  The United States is being run by a bunch of clownish amateurs.

“They misspelled the word “principals.”  They attacked Europeans as ‘free-loading’ and ‘pathetic.’  They made clear the top message they wanted to come out of the military attack was that ‘Biden failed.’”

Meanwhile, Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the Trump administration for using a Signal chat to discuss plans for carrying out bombing in Yemen, calling on officials to resign while saying others would have been fired for the same actions.

Warner noted that “classified information should never be discussed over an unclassified system.”

So, from my post in the cheap seats out West, a few perceptions:

• Hegseth, given his checkered past and lack of experience, should never have been appointed by Trump to run the Defense Department.
• He has no idea what he is doing and he proved it, though now, of course, he defends what happened and goes after the Atlantic editor, the innocent party.
• Those who joined Hegseth on the call should have wondered who the “JG” was on the call – and, of course, it was Goldberg.

• Those who serve under Hegseth ought to be very concerned that he can’t keep secrets.
• For his part, Donald Trump said he had no idea about the breach of national security.  In and of itself, this lack of awareness is a sad commentary on Trump and his top-level staff who did not keep him informed about the breach.  Plus, now that he knows about it, he defends those who conducted this charade as “good people.”
• All this raises questions of duplicity – duplicity about Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton for using e-mails some years ago to discuss state secrets and now Trump and his ilk doing far worse.
• Members of Congress ought to be aghast at this violation.  Some are.  Some aren’t.  One who isn’t is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson who said knowing more isn’t worth it.

A fitting conclusion I use for this blog post came from Jon Stewart in his late night Daily Show as reported by the New York Times:

“…Stewart applauded the administration for ‘once again carrying out its plans with competence and professionalism.’

“You know, back in my day, if you were a journalist who wanted leaked war documents, you had to work the sources:  Meet them in a dark garage, earn their trust, pound the pavement.  Now?  You just wait for the national security adviser to be distracted by ‘White Lotus’ while he’s setting up his ‘Bomb Yemen’ group chat.”

And the best additional conclusion comes from the columnist Milbank:

“The United States is being run by a bunch of clownish amateurs.”

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

This is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit because, you seen, I am a management guru.

So:

From the Daily Show:  Jordan Klepper said no one should be blowing up Teslas — especially because if you just wait a few minutes, they’ll probably do it by themselves.

Comment:  No matter the cause, there is no reason for persons to commit a crime to express their dislike for Elon Musk, the Tesla guy.  But, at the same time, given how Musk, who was not elected to anything, is running roughshod over the federal government, protests are relatively easy to understand.

From the Atlantic Magazine:  President Donald Trump, never shy about boasting, has in recent weeks taken credit for a range of initiatives that were already under way before he took office.

This always strikes me as typical of Trump who takes credit when it is not deserved. 

And in that way, if not many others, Trump stands in direct contrast to the governor for whom I worked in Oregon, the late Victor Atiyeh.  He never cared who got credit for good things in Oregon.  Nor did he assume he deserved credit.  He just wanted the good things to occur.

Comment:  It’s good to reflect on Atiyeh.  I appreciated the opportunity to work for him and he was good for Oregon.

From the New York Times:  Trump’s expansive interpretation of presidential power has become the defining characteristic of his second term.  No one else matters.  Not Congress.  Not the courts.  Not public opinion.  He is the epitome of the narcissist.

Comment:  Trump and his allies are not as good as they say they are.  Consider only the recent instanced in which his national security advisers set up a phone chat to discuss dropping bombs on Yemen – and, unwittingly, they let a journalist in on the call.

Which proves that Trump and national security brass have no idea what they are doing.

From on-line golf magazines:  The only golfer who hails from Norway – I am a Norwegian by ancestry – won the Valspar pro tournament last weekend.  His name Vicktor Hovland.

Comment:  Yay, Norway!

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

As a guy who loves golf, I often have thought about great pairings on the course – great pro golfers, with equally great caddies.

Remember Tiger Woods and one of his main caddies (though he has had several), Steve Williams.

Or Freddie Couples and, at one time, his main man, Joe LaCava.

Well, today, there is another great pairing as is mentioned in this blog headline:  Scottie Scheffler and Ted Scott.

When I first saw Scheffler, it was back in 2015.  The occasion was the NCAA golf championships hosted by Eugene Golf and Country Club, about 60 miles south of where I live in Salem, Oregon.

I volunteered for about 10 days straight there and it was a pleasure to be involved and, on occasion, to watch Scheffler.

At that time, Scheffler played for the University of Texas.  He was was very good and you could tell he had a lot of potential.  In a final round match against the University of Oregon’s Aaron Miles, also today a pro golfer, Scheffler won.

But, despite his prowess, his team lost to the University of Oregon which was fun for me as an Oregonian and, of course, fun, too, for the Oregon head coach, Casey Martin, who had grown up in Oregon and was a member of the golf club that hosted the tournament.

Then, soon after, Scheffler turned pro and, as they say, the rest is history.

He has become the acknowledged number 1 in professional golf, having won tournaments time after time, especially in 2024 when he set records.

And, on his bag his been his caddie nearly from day one – Ted Stock.

Here is how that happened.

Scheffler knew Scott as both attended the pro golf tour Bible study.  Then, it took another big step when Scheffler played with Bubba Watson in a tournament when Watson had Scott on his bag.  Scott had that job for about 15 years, but the partnership ended in September 2021.  Scott went on to try to earn a living as a teaching pro in retirement.

But, Scheffler talked to the retired Scott, asked him to consider caddying for him, and Scott said he would think about it.

Not only that, Scott when home and asked his family to pray about the decision for a week.  They came back and said — do it.

So, he did and the two have made quite a pair.  Scheffler made millions in 2024 and so has Scott…reportedly about $1.5 million, especially high for a caddie.

But, the good news is that the relationship between Scheffler and Scott is more than about money, winning and acclaim.  It is about their shared faith in Christ.

They enjoy a great relationship on and off the course and it is clear that they are Christians and act like it, both in life and in golf.