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 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.

One of the departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit is The Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.  It is open again today.

And, if you read what follows, you may note that all the good quotes today come from the Wall Street Journal.  Well, that is because it was as far as I got this morning — the Washington Post and the New York Times are next.

The Good Quotes Department is one of five I run:  The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Words Matter.

So, on to good quotes.

FROM DANIEL HENNINGER WHO WRITES THE WONDER LAND COLUMN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Surveying the record of his three years in office, President Joe Biden has decided his re-election turns on two events:  The Capitol riot of 2021 and Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 presidential election results in several states.

“Anyone else out there as tired as I am of hearing the phrase ‘our democracy’?

“From all the recent quavering about threats to ‘our democracy,’ you’d think we were living in Venezuela or Zimbabwe.  Yet Biden stood Saturday near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, invoking George Washington to argue that Trump is on the brink of overturning an American democratic order that has survived since 1789.

“’We’re living in an era,’ Biden said, ‘where a determined minority is doing everything in its power to try to destroy our democracy for their own agenda.’

“The word ‘democracy’ appears in Biden’s speech almost as many times as its more than 40 nearby references to Trump.

“’He’s willing,’ says Biden, ‘to sacrifice our democracy, put himself in power.’ The sitting president raised the specter of an American democracy that ‘falls.’

COMMENT:  I run contrary to Henninger, who believes that American democracy is strong enough to tolerate Trump.  No.  I believe that Trump, if he gains the presidency a second time, will turn the country on its head.  He admires dictators and wants to be done, even if, for example, that means pardoning all those now in prison for their actions on January 6, and pardoning himself if he can get away with that now-illegal action.

So, for Trump, democracy is just a word, not a commitment to save it for America.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Claudine Gay’s resignation as president of Harvard might seem like a ripe moment for introspection at America’s institutions of higher learning.  Alas, they seem to be circling the progressive wagons instead.

“Public figures these days, no matter their race, are too often targets of invective and lies.  Yet, Gay brushed past the substantive criticism of her leadership and failure to punish anti-semitism on campus.  So did her bosses at the Harvard Corporation, which issued a statement lauding her ‘insight, decisiveness, and empathy.’  Jewish students at Harvard might disagree.

“Gay was correct in one respect:  ‘The campaign against me was about more than one university and one leader.’  Her equivocation before Congress about whether calling for genocide of Jews violated Harvard’s code of conduct made her a symbol of the progressive group-think infecting higher education and American institutions more broadly.”

COMMENT:  I think the Wall Street Journal is right when it says:  “This might seem like a ripe moment for introspection at America’s institutions of higher learning.  Alas, they seem to be circling the progressive wagons instead.”

The ability to inspect itself in just such issues as “diversity, equity and inclusion” and plagiarism ought to be a skill in higher education.  So far, it does not appear to be so as higher ed sets out to be insular, not open.

FROM COLUMNIST PEGGY NOONAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  Under this headline and sub-head – “The Voters Finally Get Their Say:  Each party seems set to make a big mistake, but a Trump-Biden rematch isn’t yet inevitable,” Noonan writes this”

“Finally, we vote.  Iowa is Monday, New Hampshire a week from Tuesday. I refuse to see the story as over.  Nothing is written.  Both big parties look set on making a mistake, but there’s time to turn it around.

“Democrats on the ground are making a mistake in not rebelling against the inevitability of Joe Biden.  He’s no longer up to the job, the vice president never was, and this doesn’t go under the heading National Security Secret Number 379; everybody knows.

“The problem isn’t the Biden campaign, however lame it may or may not be.  It isn’t that the president’s most important advisers are in the White House, not the campaign.  It’s him, and it’s not only his age.

“His speeches are boring, he never seems sincere, he seems propped up.  He doesn’t have a tropism toward intellectual content and likes things airy; his subject matter isn’t life as most people are experiencing it, but something many steps removed.  He often seems like he just met the text.

“Democrats on the ground should raise a ruckus, issue a mighty roar. They can do better than this. To win, I think, they must.

“Republicans similarly shouldn’t accept the inevitability of Donald Trump.  On the debate stage Wednesday Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis were the Bickersons, and seemed smaller.  On Fox, in a counter-programming coup, the former president was Big Daddy with a sinister side, and seemed big.  He’s riding high.  He thinks he’s got this thing.

“Trump will say anything for attention; he wants the cameras on him.

“Haley is a steely, orderly lady, DeSantis a bull, Trump a malign screaming meemie.” 

COMMENT:  As is often the case, I agree with Noonan.  She has a way with words in her own style, which tends to be conversational, not over-the-top rhetoric. 

This time, she is right on two counts:  First, as voters, we need better options thaneither Biden or Trump; second, what we’ll see this week is Americans voting for the first time, which is better than more to’ing and fro’ing among commentators – yes, even Noonan, and no doubt she’d agree.

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 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.

There is a lot of to’ing and fro’ing these days – don’t you like that phrase? – about what Donald Trump is doing in court.

But, to me, a non-lawyer, there seems to be one clear objective for Trump:  Delay court proceedings so the election can occur without a ruling going against him.

Of course, on the other hand, this also appears to be the case:  Trump benefits politically whenever he is hauled into court as he could be as he faces an incredible list of 91 charges.  His sycophants like when he portrays himself as the victim, as any narcissist would.

Washington Post Associate Editor Ruth Marcus covered these issues in a column that appeared this morning under this headline:  “Trump’s sly ‘I’m immune from prosecution’ claim finally runs aground.”

Here is how she started her column:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Donald Trump’s bid to evade criminal accountability for seeking to undo the 2020 election results might finally be hitting a brick wall.  With Trump in attendance, a three-judge federal appeals court panel seemed ready to reject the former president’s preposterous assertion of absolute immunity from prosecution for his official conduct, even after leaving office.

“The audacity of Trump’s claim has been evident since he raised it in the fall, as was the near-certainty that it would ultimately fail.  Still, there was something clarifying about hearing his motion to dismiss demolished by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:  George H.W. Bush appointee Karen L. Henderson, joined by Biden nominees Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs.”

Of course, no matter what happened, Trump chortled after his day in court:  “We think we had a very good day today.”

Marcus answered as I would:  “…his spin does not make it so.  The panel’s questions got to the heart of Trump’s staggering overreach.  Their hypotheticals exposed the intolerable consequences of establishing such immunity.”

Marcus reports that judges confronted Trump lawyer D. John Sauer with the concessions his legal predecessors had made on Trump’s behalf long before — in the New York criminal investigation, that Trump enjoyed only “temporary presidential immunity,” while in office; in the second impeachment trial, that Trump could be criminally charged and so didn’t need to be convicted.

Sauer didn’t have a good response, though he and his co-counsels on behalf of Trump appear to be saying this:  In order to be charged with anything in court, a president or former president would have to be convicted first in an impeachment process in Congress.

In general comments, members of the three-judge panel hearing the case appeared to dispute the logic of Trump’s attorneys.

Here is how Marcus described the to’ing and fro’ing in court:

“Judge Henderson expressed some hesitation about the consequences of such a decision, asking:  ‘How do we write an opinion that will stop the floodgates” of tit-for-tat prosecutions of former presidents?  But she also questioned Sauer’s argument about Trump’s asserted immunity.  I think it’s paradoxical to say that Trump’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws.’”

Good point.

Then, in a development that all of us non-attorneys could understand fully, Marcus reported on what she called, “The most chilling part of the Trump team’s argument — the part that revealed the implications of granting presidents the broad immunity Trump claims.  The example involved SEAL Team 6, the elite military unit.  Judge Pan put the question to Sauer:  “Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?”

She pressed Sauer:  “…you’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?”

If this didn’t underline the reality of Trump’s audacious claims, nothing would.

Then came the bottom line from Marcus:

“And that is the real point of the immunity dispute.  Trump’s lawyers don’t really expect to win it — they just want to run out the clock, past the current March 4 trial date and, preferably, past Election Day.  That won’t take just a quick ruling by Tuesday’s panel to avoid, but also an equally swift disposition by the full appeals court or Supreme Court, when the case inevitably comes its way.

“Timing isn’t everything here, but it’s awfully close.”

My conclusion mimics Marcus.  Trump is trying to run out the clock as a way to gain a second term in the Oval Office.

Perish the thought of that occurring.

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 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.

Could Nikki Haley become U.S. president?

A good question.

Betters – even those who choose to bet on politics so far in advance of a result — might say “no.”  She has too steep a hill to climb to get over Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination.

But, in the Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker, makes the case for Haley in a piece that appeared under this headline:  “A Rational Case for Nikki Haley As President.”

Parkers’ words are worth considering so I include these excerpts in my blog, with a few additional comments from me along the way:

Error! Filename not specified.

From Parker:  “Though it seems as if campaigning for the 2024 presidential election began right after the last one ended, the voting is only now beginning, with Iowa’s Republican caucuses on January 15.

“As usual, we’ll learn that the caucuses are strange and chaotic.  We’ll be reminded that the winner might not become the GOP nominee but one of the losers might.  And it’s on to New Hampshire on January 23 and South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primary on February 24.

“Most bets are on Donald Trump, despite fierce campaigning by his top challengers, former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has visited all 99 Iowa counties and secured the Iowa governor’s endorsement.  DeSantis is seen as needing to score second place in Iowa to continue his bid, as Haley and Trump are polling ahead of him in New Hampshire.”

Parker contends – and I agree – that there are “countless reasons” Trump, who has declared himself the revenge candidate, should be, as Parker put it well, “swept into history’s dustbin and left to spend his golden years as a professional defendant.”

More from Parker:

“In addition to risking a repeat of January 6, 2021, a Trump loss would leave us with the elderly Joe Biden in the presidency and the painful probability that he won’t live to complete his second term.  And you know what that means.  The single strongest argument against Biden’s re-election is Vice President Harris.

“I can’t stress enough how irresponsible it would be to make a Harris presidency possible.  Just listen to her speeches.  Her rhetorical flourishes can be dumbfounding, as when she says, “When we talk about the children of the community, they are a children of the community.”

I think Parker goes too far in criticizing Harris.  First, Harris is the vice president and what goes with that job is almost nothing.  To be sure, Harris may not have performed well in the role, but that, to me, is not enough to rail against her possibility of becoming president if – yes, if — Biden wins.

Biden has different issues, Parker continues and then goes on:

“Never mind the verbal pratfalls for which he has long been infamous; it’s his physical ones that are most worrisome.  Falling is the No. 1 cause of fatal injuries in older people, and at times, it seems Biden is tilting too far for comfort.  No one wants to hear personal criticism of our aged president, so we’ll leave it at:  Go home, Joe.

“Biden was surely the better choice in 2020 — far preferable to a guy accused of paying a porn star for sex and silence while his wife was taking care of an infant, a constitutional heathen who encouraged a siege of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters and believers in the ‘big lie.’
“Trump, don’t forget, was impeached by the House of Representatives for inciting violence against the Government of the United States.

“This glowering, pouty-frowned schlump belongs nowhere near the White House.  Trump is an unfit candidate.  Full stop.”

Parker provides this conclusion:

“Thus, we are left with Haley and DeSantis.  My view is that Haley is far and above the best pick for the jobs of chief executive and commander in chief.  Like DeSantis, she has been a governor — South Carolina, where she was popular enough to be re-elected.  She left that job to become Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, where she was a natural.

“Articulate, knowledgeable and a quick study, she entered and left the position as a polished pro.

“Do the right thing for your country, Iowa, and vote for Haley.”

If I lived in Iowa, I would vote for Haley.  And, if I was a Republican, she would be a far better option for me than Trump.  Not even close.

Given my status – an Oregonian who is an independent – I’ll just keep hoping that voters do something better than Trump.  He is the worst choice among Republicans.  Haley is the best.

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 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 phrase in this blog headline refers to an unfortunate but understandable status of the game I love – golf.

Rather than admiring all of the top plays and shots in golf, today it’s all about the money.

Global Golf Post founder, editor and writer, Jim Nugent, made that point in a column he wrote for the most recent edition.

I was interested enough in his column that it prompted me to write again a about a subject I detest:  LIV, which is a professional golf tour financed by tainted money from Saudia Arabia.

For his part, Nugent bemoaned that result, but also took time over the holidays to talk to many of his contacts about the state of the golf fame.

What he did, obviously, was not conducting a scientific poll.  Rather, he collected conversations from friends and contacts, then wrote his column. 

The summary:  “I heard time and again,” Nugent wrote, “that many recreational golfers are done with the professional game and are not going to watch television coverage any longer, except, perhaps, for the majors.”

What has created this sullied reputation?

I think it is that various pro golfers – the latest is Jon Rahm who went back on his previous criticisms of LIV to take $600 million in LIV money to bolt from the PGA Tour – won’t admit that they are doing what they are doing “for the money.”

Instead, golfers like Rahm say they are joining LIV “to grow the game.”  It’s as if they are uttering a platitude from a “list of what you should say” to the media and the public when you join LIV.

Balderdash.

There is only pro who joined LIV and told like it was – Harold Varner, Jr.  He said he joined “to take the money” for the good of his family and to assure a bright, monied future for his children.

Good for Varner.

That’s honesty.

I add that, if someone offered me $600 million, I’d take it.  I just hope I would give an honest, solid reason for the action.

Meanwhile, the future of pro golf is uncertain for several reasons:

• LIV and the PGA Tour are still negotiating over a possible alliance.  The deadline to succeed came and went a couple weeks ago, but both sides say they are still talking.

• It also is not clear that two leaders on both sides – Greg Norman for LIV and Jay Monahan for the PGA Tour – have much of a future.  For my part, Norman can go away any time, given all his flamboyance to advance his personal causes.  As for Monahan, Nugent says (a) he deserves to stay because of the good he has done in the past to boost golf (including management of the Covid pandemic), and (b) because his actions in the LIV deal were done in concert with other members of the PGA Tour Board, not just himself.

• The battle over limiting golf ball distance – something not under formal consideration —  also is viewed, Nugent reports, as ignoring the interests of recreational golfers.

Finally, another uncertainty for the PGA Tour is its relationships with current corporate golf sponsors, as well as new sponsors it is trying to recruit. 

Over the last few days, a long-time sponsor, Wells Fargo, said it would continue by paying $20 million to the Tour as a way to stay involved with its sponsorship. 

The Tour said it would settle only for $25 million.  Wells Fargo bolted.

Not a smart move by the PGA Tour.

So, on and on it goes.  Dissension.  Disagreement.  Dishonesty.

For my part, I hope to be able to play the game I love and wait for at least one more pro event, the Masters, my favorite tournament of any year.   I’ll watch that; not sure about others.

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 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 other day I wrote that I needed the “head of a pin” to convey all I knew about a certain subject.

Well, today, I need a new pin.

On it, I would write all I know about the Webb Telescope, the one that, far away in the heavens, sends pictures back to earth of stuff that occurred billions of years ago.  Yes, billions!

Here is the way Washington Post columnist George Will wrote about Webb in a piece that appeared under a headline that I borrowed for this blog:

“Everything began, cosmologists currently think, with a bang — the Big Bang; if it does not deserve to be a proper noun, what does? — 13.7 billion years ago.  All the material in the universe, including us, is — literally — stardust (cue Nat King Cole’s rendition), meaning residues of the explosion.  

“The light gathered by Webb’s mirrors expands our knowledge of how stars form.  And perish:  This is not going to end well.

“Launched 13 months ago, Webb is orbiting 940,000 miles away.  With its 18 mirrors and its five sunshield layers unfolded, it is a tennis-court-size engineering masterpiece.  To function, each mirror must, after being hurled into space on a shuddering rocket, retain this exquisite precision:  If each mirror were the size of the continental United States, each should not vary more than two inches from perfect conformity with the others.”

Will goes on to write using, as usually is the case, stalwart prose, and good words.

All of this called to my memory a blog I wrote a year or so ago citing an editorial writer for the Arizona Republica who composed a thought-provoking piece including this statement:

“Peering into deep outer space, images from some 13 billion years ago, stirs not only our wonderment, but also takes us on a journey of spirituality.”

The writer, Phil Boas, went on to ask this probing question:  “Did the Webb Telescope show us the face of God?”

He didn’t directly answer the question, leaving readers with the option of doing so themselves.  But he did include incredible facts in his column, which I repeat here.

• “…what a patch of sky!  It includes a massive cluster of galaxies about four billion light-years away that astronomers use as a kind of cosmic telescope.  The cluster’s enormous gravitation field acts as a lens, warping and magnifying the light from galaxies behind it that would otherwise be too faint and faraway to see.”
• Through the Webb Telescope, mankind is seeing extremely distant galaxies “that stretch back to the beginning of time.  It’s a galaxy-finding machine.”
• A lonely speck in the cosmic dark:  This is the oldest documented light in the history of the universe from 13 billion years — let me say that again — 13 billion years ago.
• A billion is a number so large it is essentially an abstraction to the human mind.  Light that has traveled 13 billion light-years requires context so we can begin to understand it – see the next bullet.  
• Light moves at a speed of 670.6 million miles per hour.  A beam of light can travel approximately 6 trillion miles in a single earth year, according to Space.com.  At that speed, you could travel around the Earth 7.5 times in a single second.
• The numbers are staggering.  Our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light-years across and contains some 100-400 billion stars, according to NASA.  Its size is too big to comprehend, but, within the context of the larger universe, it is smaller than a grain of sand.
• One of our neighboring galaxies is Andromeda. It is 220,000 light-years wide.  More than twice the size of our own.
• How many galaxies do you think there are?  NASA estimates 2 trillion. And if you can wrap your brain around that, ask yourself this question:  How many planets are there in all those galaxies?
• Too many planets to comprehend:  Roughly 700 quintillion — that’s 7 followed by 20 zeroes — 700,000,000,000,000,000,000.

My mind is boggled by these statistics, not to mention the photos produced by the telescope.

In the face of these numbers and photos, my eyes glaze over, not just my mind, which raises the need for a new “head of a pin.”

Then, to regain my composure, I return to my basic premise, a choice I presume to make:   It is that God created all of what we see and cannot see  –-  and I admire his handiwork, at least what I can understand of it.

And, more good news:  We can have a personal relationship with this very big God.

Does this mean, as some have suggested, that the Webb Telescope “allows us to see the face of God?”

I say “no.”

God is too big for a telescope, even a complicated and huge one like Webb, to reckon with God.  But what the telescope has produced provides this conclusion:  A glimpse into the past – yes, billions of years ago – when God created all we see and cannot see.

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 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.

George Will writes for the Washington Post and appears other places in a role where he analyzes politics.

He is one of the best going for three reasons:  First, he uses words very well and often I find myself having to look up one of them to make sure I know the definition (and Will is always right); second, he has a knack for going behind-the-scenes to find cases of alleged government wrong-doing; and, third, he often skewers the worst former president and wannabe future president in history,  Donald Trump.

In his current column, however, Will goes too far writing under this headline:  “A Constitution-flouting ‘authoritarian’ is already in the White House.”

In what he writes, Will compares Trump’s clear-cut sedition on January 6 to President Joe Biden’s decision to go around Congress in a particular federal appointment.

Conflating the two is beyond the pale.

Here is how Will started his most recent column.

Error! Filename not specified.

“Overcaffeinated Cassandras continue to forecast an ‘authoritarian’ and anti-constitutional Donald Trump dictatorship.  They are mistaken about the near future because, among other reasons, they misread the recent past.  Also, they are oblivious to, or at least reticent about, the behavior of Trump’s successor:  Joe Biden is, like Trump, an authoritarian recidivist mostly stymied by courts.

“When Trump wielded presidential power, he could not even build his border wall.  But next time, the fevered forecasters warn, the entire federal apparatus, which mostly loathes him, will suddenly be submissive.  Such alarmism, which evidently gives some people pleasurable frissons, distracts attention from the similarity of Trump’s and Biden’s disdain for legality.”

Will admits that “instances of Trump’s anti-constitutional behavior have been amply reported and deplored.”

But, then, he compares Trump to Biden this way:

“Biden’s, less so — although they (e.g., the eviction moratorium, the vaccine mandate, the cancellation of student debt), and judicial reprimands of them, have been frequent.  Now, consider the lack of attention to his contempt for the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the Senate majority’s supine complicity.”

The president, Will says, “has plenary power to nominate principal officers of the federal government without seeking prior advice from the Senate.  The Senate has plenary power to confirm — or reject — nominees, and it can somewhat condition the president’s power by stipulating certain qualifications for particular offices.”

Will goes on to recount a current event.

“Biden nominated Ann Carlson last March to be administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Two months later, when it was clear that the Senate would not confirm her, Biden withdrew the nomination.

“But less than five weeks after that, he named Carlson acting administrator.  His impertinence would perhaps be limited, by the Vacancies Act, to 210 days, which would expire December 26.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the act prohibits ‘any person who has been nominated to fill any vacant office from performing that office’s duties in an acting capacity.’”

After he uncovered this behind-the-scenes, situation, Will says Biden’s “indifference to these legalities is Trumpian.”

I say “no.”

Biden may try to find a way around certain laws and procedures as he did in the case Will reports.  Part of the reason he does is intransigence in Congress as Republicans, often for fun and spite, try to make life difficult for a president they don’t like.

For his part, Trump, if he rises again to the highest political office in the land, wants to overturn the country’s democracy.  He wants to be an autocrat, pardoning all those who have convicted of crimes in the January 6 insurrection, as well, if at all possible, himself.

Then, he wants all of the federal government to do his direct bidding, no matter the consequences.

I wish we had a better choice for president this time around in the presidential election, a point I have made before.

But, given the probable choice facing all of us as voters this year, I go with Biden.

*********

And this footnote:  Biden went on the attack against Trump yesterday in a clear indication that it will be Biden v. Trump in the presidential election.

Here, from the Washington Post, is an excerpt of what Biden said:

“He said other world leaders have approached him with concerns about the impact of another Trump term, and he recounted in detail Trump’s encouragement of the January 6 rioters, calling it ‘among the worst derelictions of duty by a president in American history.’  He added, ‘He still doesn’t understand a basic truth, and that is you can’t love your country only when you win.”

Good words from Biden.  I agree with him and I hope other Americans will find a way to do the same.

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 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 following story appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning and I could not help by post it as my blog.

Dogs in heaven?  Yes.

Both the author, an attorney in the East, and I in the West, say yes!

Here’s the story, with a conclusion from me.

**********

My friend Paul had to put down Bear, his beloved 11-year-old black Lab. Bear’s lungs gave out, and Paul did the humane thing, although not without, in his words, crying hard and often.  Every dog lover understands, for we know all too well how our dogs love us.

My mini bernedoodle, Sugaree, meets me at the door when she hears me on the front porch steps.  She jumps in anticipation — all four legs catching air — until I enter the hallway.  It’s a love that doesn’t diminish.

This is my welcome every weeknight when I come home from work.  I haven’t split the atom, ended world hunger or even brought her a new chew toy, yet I am honored like Pompey the Great in his third Roman triumph.

This nightly greeting has two effects on me.  First, it makes me want to be better, to be worthy of such love.  This reflection, in turn, helps me to love God, whose perfect love never ceases to draw me out from my own imperfections, from the man I am to the man I should be.

Second, it reminds me how silly it is to think I can love too many people or anyone too much.  If loving is willing the good of the other, then there is no upper limit to it.  This insight helps me strive to love my neighbor and to be an instrument of peace.  Sugaree is my role model, as Bear was Paul’s.

I like to think that this life isn’t all there was for Bear.  Years ago, Archbishop Fulton Sheen first perked up my ears, so to speak, on the spirituality of dogs.  In his autobiography, “Treasure in Clay,” Sheen wrote that during his holy hour of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, at times he felt “like a dog at the master’s door, ready in case he called me.”

British writer C.S. Lewis went a step further in “The Problem of Pain,” in which he made a plausible case for hounds in heaven.  Lewis thought sufficient selfhood might exist in dogs and other domesticated animals that their immortality is subsumed within their master’s heavenly destiny.

For my money, though, G.K. Chesterton made the best case for dogs in heaven.  In “Orthodoxy,” Chesterton proposed that perhaps the one thing too great for God to have shown us when he walked the earth was his mirth.  What is more mirthful than the thought of a surprise party on heavenly move-in day where gathered guests include good ol’ Fido?  And who could keep such a joyful secret but someone with infinite patience?

So, chin up, Paul.  I believe you will see Bear again.  God surely has use for a creature that teaches us so much about love.

**********

AND THIS IN CONCLUSION:  One reason why I like this story is that it reminds me of my wife’s and my first dog, Hogan.  We had to put him down with a brain tumor at age 13.

It was a tough day for both of us.

But, we took some solace in thinking of Hogan romping around in the fields of heaven with other dogs that had gone upward, such as Tiger, a dog owned by our good friends who had to put him down.

Our reunion in heaven will be a great day!

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 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 this blog headline is true for me.  I am a dog lover.

My wife and I have had two dogs.  The first was a miniature poodle, Hogan, who came to live with us about 20 years ago.

We loved that little guy – and “little” means about 15pounds.  He added a lot to our lives.

When he went to heaven, we traveled to the same poodle breeder near where we live – a reputable breeder by all accounts – and got our second poodle, Callaway.  Hogan was probably his uncle or something along that line.

We have had Callaway for more than six years now, and, like Hogan, he is part of our family.

To think about this issue – humans and dogs – I did what I often do, which is to consult Mr. Google.  Here is what I found.

• Most humans love dogs for a variety of reasons.  Dogs are known for their loyalty, companionship, and affectionate nature, which can bring a sense of joy, comfort, and emotional support to their human companions.  Additionally, dogs are often seen as playful, protective, and can provide a sense of security.

• The “love hormone” oxytocin connects us with our pups.  Dogs and people recognize emotions in members of the other species to the degree that is typically only possible within one’s own species.

• Dogs don’t judge us, answer back or lie to us – in fact, they are the source of comfort that many people crave.  It doesn’t matter who you are, what you look like, or what job you do, as long as you are kind to your dog, he or she will love you.

The latter point grabs me in this sense.  When I come home from the golf course, no matter how I played, Hogan in the past and Callaway in the current love me.  I don’t have to shoot a good round to garner their love; it comes naturally.

This week, my wife, Nancy, also a dog lover, sent me this story — Nine Signs of Love From Your Pup.

Here is a reprint:

Do you ever wonder if your dog could possibly love you as much as you love them?  We have many ways to show our love for dogs, including pets, walks, playtime, and caring for them.  While dogs might not be able to talk to you, they have plenty of ways to show you that they love you.  These nine actions are a good sign that your dog loves you back, and it’s not just a one-sided relationship. 

1. Playing and wrestling with you.  Dogs love to play, and wrestling is their natural way of having fun.  It’s the way that they play with other dogs as well. 
2. Leaning against you.  Dogs love physical attention; when they want more from you, they will lean, nuzzle, or cuddle you for extra love.  It means they feel safe. 
3. Sleeping with you.  Dogs are pack animals and sleep huddled together.  If your dog sleeps near you, it shows that they feel safe and that they care.
4. Cuddling with your belongings.  Dedicated dogs love everything about their humans, including their scent.  They might like to carry around your items and sleep near them.
5. Jumping on you.  While many owners discourage their dogs from jumping up, it is a sign of love.  Your pup is excited that you have returned and is celebrating the moment.
6. Bringing gifts to you.  Dogs will often bring humans their favorite toys to show you that they want to play or share with you.
7. Wagging tails.  The tail isn’t always a sign of happiness, but if the dog is wagging their tail loosely and has comfortable body language, it’s safe to say that they are excited.
8. Holding eye contact.  If dogs are willing to maintain eye contact with you, it’s a sign of trust and love.  Brains release oxytocin when there is maintained eye contact between dogs and humans.
9. Following you around.  Dogs know who is responsible for their food and shelter and will often follow their owners because they love being near you. 
   
   

Few bonds are as close and special – no questions asked – as the one with your dog. 

For my wife and me, Callaway is a special part of our family.

So, find a dog to love and be loved back. 

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 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.

Consider these recent developments:

1. Oregon State University:  The Beavers, without several of their key players who either transferred or opted not to play – not to mention their coach who left the university hanging by high-tailing it to Michigan – got plastered 40-8 by Notre Dame in the Sun Bowl.  The fact that so many were missing contributed to the lopsided loss.

• Georgia and Florida State:  The latter also was missing a boatload of players, so lost to Georgia by a score of 63-3.

The New York Times wrote this:

“Georgia coach Kirby Smart doesn’t often get on a soapbox and usually tries to avoid making headlines.  This was uncharacteristic.  But it was clear that, as happy as he was about how his team played, he also felt pity for what Florida State coach Mike Norvell and his remaining players had to endure.

“The Seminoles were down more than two dozen players who finished the season with the team, including six starters who opted out to prepare for the 2024 NFL Draft.”

• The University of Oregon:  The Ducks opted for a different approach by emphasizing the importance of the Fiesta Bowl.  And they won by a wide margin – 45-6 against outmanned Liberty University.

What was important about this game was several-fold:  (a) U of O coach Dan Lanning said it was important to finish strong; (b) two players who didn’t have to play – Bo Nix and Bucky Irving – went out strong, even as both head toward pro football careers; (c) and Nix came across as the solid human being he is by giving God credit for his performance as his parents watched from the stands decked out in their U of O regalia.

Good for Nix and the U of O. 

• And, how about this?  The worst football coaching decision this year, if not longer, belongs to Miami head coach Mario Cristobal.

Here is how the Washington Post described the Cristobal mess under this headline:  “Miami declines to take a knee against Georgia Tech.”

“All the Miami football team had to do to defeat Georgia Tech on October 7 was take a knee.  The Hurricanes had a three-point lead with 35 seconds remaining, and the Yellow Jackets were out of timeouts.  One kneel-down would end the game.  Instead, Miami called for a handoff to running back Donald Chaney Jr.  The result:  Calamity.

“Georgia Tech recovered Chaney’s fumble and embarked on a 74-yard drive that took all of 24 seconds.  It ended with quarterback Haynes King completing a 44-yard touchdown pass to a wide-open Christian Leary with one second remaining, giving Georgia Tech a 23-20 victory.

“’Not going to make an excuse for it, say we should’ve done this or that,’ Coach Mario Cristobal said of his decision. ‘That’s it.  We should’ve done it.  Sometimes you get carried away with, just, finish the game and run it.  I should’ve stepped in and said, ‘Hey, just take a knee.’”

I don’t have much respect for Cristobal, given the way he exited the University of Oregon head coaching position several years ago, leaving after exclaiming loudly hat he would not do so.  Defenders might say he was leaving to go home to Florida, but the dishonest way he departed reminds me of what Jonathan Smith just did to Oregon State University.

Perhaps given Cristobal’s football acumen – now in question – better that he left the U of O.

So, on to 2024, when the college athletic scene, especially in football, will undergo even more changes.  The betting is that I won’t like most of them, as if my view matters.

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 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, remember, is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit, as would any management guru like me.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, the Department of Words Matter, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So, here are more good quotes.

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  Under this headline – “Maine Casts Its Ballot for Trump,” the writers said this:

“The Democrat secretary of state in Maine played into the former president’s hands by blocking his candidacy.

“This week’s huge in-kind contribution to Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is from Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who announced Thursday that she will unilaterally delete Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot.  Maine is now the second state, after Colorado, to declare him a January 6 insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  Paging the U.S. Supreme Court, alas.”

COMMENT:  It’s incredibly perverse that anything which goes against Trump becomes only another plank in his platform.  Which assumes that he has a platform other than his own, personal aggrandizement.  He doesn’t.

FROM MATTHEW HENNESEY, DEPUTY FEATURES EDITOR OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “Unambiguously, slavery was a cause of the Civil War. It might even have been the primary cause.  But it wasn’t the only cause.

“History is complex and major events never have a single or simple explanation.  A short list of hinge points that fit the description:  The fall of Rome, the French Revolution, World War I, the Great Depression, the rise of Trump.

“The American Civil War belongs on that list.  You can obviously make a case for it, and many have done so.  But a Southern politician on the stump in New England (Nikki Haley) should know better than to try.  And if she’s going to try, she has to be sure she’s going to get it right.

“Sometimes it feels as if we’re living in a dream.  Does anyone else think it strange that, in the waning days of 2023, we’re debating the cause of the Civil War?  It seems even stranger that one candidate for the GOP nomination can casually suggest the public execution of public officials and seemingly pay no political price while another has to spend several news cycles explaining what amounts to a poor choice of words.”

COMMENT:  Haley, who must know that she “always on” as a presidential candidate, made a mistake and she is paying a price for it, no matter how hard she tries to make up for the error.

As for the public execution comment, obviously it’s Trump.  And, as usual, he pays no price for such an over-the-top, if not allegedly criminal, statement.  With the Journal editor, I say, “It seems even stranger that one candidate for the GOP nomination can casually suggest the public execution of public officials and seemingly pay no political price while another has to spend several news cycles explaining what amounts to a poor choice of words.”

MORE FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  “New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that would have broadly banned employment non-compete agreements.  New York has a highly competitive economic climate and is home to many different industries,” she said in her veto message.  “These companies have legitimate interests that cannot be met with the legislation’s one-size-fits-all approach.

“Businesses use non-compete agreements to restrict employees from going to work for competitors for a specified period after they leave a company.  The purpose is to protect a company’s intellectual property and investment in worker development.  The agreements are most common in high-paying fields such as finance, tech, and bio-tech.”

COMMENT:  Hochul’s wise action reminded me of my involvement in non-compete issues when I was a lobbyist in Oregon.  As I represented the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, an antagonist, a former TV reporter who made it into the Oregon Legislature, proposed to ban non-competes in broadcasting.

Those clauses were used by many radio and television stations to protect their huge investments in high-profile anchor positions.  So, add the broadcast industry to the list above – finance, tech, bio-tech, and broadcast.

To the legislator involved in the issues in Oregon that I handled as a lobbyist, the truth didn’t matter.  He went to work to impose the ban and, with help from my broadcast clients, we managed to save at least part of the non-compete contract issue, so it can to be used by the industry in Oregon.