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 of 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.

All my friends know I am a multi-sport athlete.

At least I am in my mind.

My favorite sport is golf – and, yes, it is a sport!

But I also:

• Play bocce ball.  True confessions — my wife, Nancy, is better than I am.

• Used to play basketball, but, then I got too old, though my jump shot was a lot like Steph Curry’s.

But my new sport?

It’s “birding.”  And, yes, that is a sport, too, according to my on-line sources, which say just that – it is a sport.

All this to report that I went on a bird walk yesterday morning with a group of folks, a few from Illahe Golf and Country Club where I play golf, and a few connected with Audubon International, which recently recognized Illahe as an excellent facility for its attention to habit for birds and other species.

We traveled around a few of the holes at Illahe while the course was closed to golf.

By the way, I learned yesterday that Audubon International is one of more than 500 Audubon Societies in the United States, but is not affiliated with the National Audubon Society.  Who knows why?

Otherwise, other highlights from my venture into “birding” yesterday:

• Those on the walk, especially those connected with International Audubon, also were very “connected” to birds of all kinds, both those they saw and those they heard.  In either way, they named every one.

• There were exclamations everywhere as walkers saw birds and wanted everyone in the group to do the same.

• When we saw what I was told was a sap sucker, one woman said, “sap sucker down!”  That meant, simply, that the bird had gone from one branch to a lower one and woman wanted everyone to follow the route.

• One walker in the group was assigned to note every bird sighting on his phone – and guess what he does with every entry on his phone?  He sends it along to Cornell University, which, of all things, maintains a site to list ALL bird sightings.  Must be interesting, not to mention time consuming, to read!

My friends at Google report this:  The Cornell Lab of Ornithology is a world leader in the study, appreciation, and conservation of birds.  And that’s why it maintains the site for reports of bird sightings.  Yes, ALL bird sightings.

• Near the 14^th tee at Illahe, I was ready to see an eagle’s next because I had been told there was one there by leaders of our walk, Paul and Roxey Evans, both golfers and birders.  But, when we arrived at the spot, they were able to tell me where to look for the nest – otherwise I would not have found it — but it turned out to be a hawk’s next, not an eagle’s next.  Didn’t matter much to me.

• One thing we didn’t see:  An osprey who hung out last year on a snag over the Columbia River near the 11^th green at Illahe.  He was not there as has been the case all spring so far.  When he was there last year, it appeared he was looking for fish in the river because that’s all osprey’s eat (see how much I know about “birding”).  Unfortunately, I never was around to see him when he dove into the river for a meal.

So, based on the foregoing, you can call me “an apprentice birder.”  But, even as a learner, that qualifies birding as a new sport for me, a multi-sport athlete.

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 of 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.

Despite what some of my friends say, I am not naïve.

I know that nothing I say will change the uncertain direction of pro golf.  I know that nothing I say will offset huge donations of money from the Saudis, despite the source of it — blood money.  I know that nothing I say will be effective in prodding the two major golf tours – the PGA Tour and the DP Tour overseas – to make long-overdue changes in the way they do business.

Still, I presume to comment.

Why? 

Well, the major reason is that, as a dedicated golfer, I hope for a solid future for the game I love despite the current tension.  Another reason is that it feels good to get certain perceptions off my chest.  Those are enough reasons.

So, here are a collection of comments from golf writers, with my comments:

FROM RICK REILLY, FORMER SPORTS ILLUSTRATED WRITER AND ESPN CONTRIBUTOR, AS WELL AS AUTHOR OF “SO HELP ME GOLF:  WHY WE LOVE THE GAME:”  “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but pro golf is a triple bogey right now. It’s teetering on the edge of a disaster.

“LIV Golf, Saudi Arabia’s effort to sportswash its murderous human rights record by buying off pro golfers with stupid money (Phil Mickelson: Reportedly $200 million), is working.

“These LIV golfers know the Saudis butchered Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.  They know the Saudis jail dissenters, criminalize homosexuality, and oppress women.  And in response, the players have sent a message loud and clear:  We don’t care. We want bigger jets.

“It’s hilarious to hear Mickelson and the others try to justify working for blood money.  Well, sure, he knows the Saudis are ‘scary mother——s,’ as he told his biographer, Alan Shipnuck.  But he also says:  ‘I’ve also seen the good that the game of golf has done through history.’

“Right.  Nothing relieves the downtrodden people of a despotic nation like a well-struck 6-iron.  Remember when Kim Jong Il shot 34 one day and the North Korean people suddenly weren’t starving?  Yeah, neither do I.”

COMMENT:  Critics could say Reilly engages in overstatement, including the words he chooses to use, but he is right.  Various pro golfers have signed up with the Saudis and don’t care about the source of the money.  Plus, they are not playing real competitive golf now; they are playing for guaranteed money, no matter how they play.

So, forgive me – I have no intention of watching any of the LIV “exhibitions.”

FROM PAUL KRUGMAN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES:  “Even if you don’t play or follow golf — which I don’t — you’re probably aware of the controversy now engulfing the game.

“A number of the world’s top-ranked pro players, notably Phil Mickelson, made extremely lucrative deals to play in a new tour, the LIV Golf International Series, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.  The PGA Tour, which has traditionally dominated the sport, responded by suspending 17 of these players.

“The Saudis are obviously engaged in reputation-laundering — greenswashing? — in an attempt to make people forget about the atrocities their regime has perpetrated.  It’s less clear what motivated the PGA.  Did it consider the LIV series flawed, not a proper golf tour?  Was it attempting to squash competition?  Or was the problem with the LIV series’ sponsors?

COMMENT:  Good questions, including for the PGA Tour which has not come across as lily-white in the current kerfuffle.  See below for a contention that it needs to consider changing.

FROM EAMON LYNCH IN GOLFWEEK:  “Not everything remains unclear in the escalating war between the PGA Tour and its Saudi-funded rival, LIV Golf.  

“We know, for example, that moral arguments are meaningless to the amoral, that calls for loyalty are futile if directed to the disloyal, that appeals to a greater good are worthless to the selfish, and that emotional pleas are ineffective to the indifferent, even from families of those killed on September 11th.

“We know too that professional golfers view the current landscape in purely commercial terms:  What’s the maximum they can be paid for the minimum amount of work?

“The baggage that comes with any benefactor — which in this case includes the bonesaw dismembering of a critic, mass executions, systematic mistreatment of women and gays, and war crimes in Yemen — are mere moveable obstructions for those who have signed with LIV Golf and those who will do so.”

COMMENT:  Lynch has it right.

AND MORE FROM LYNCH:  “The PGA Tour and DP World Tour still have not presented a vision of a shared future based on the much-ballyhooed ‘strategic alliance.’  The failure to articulate adequately the potential of that future to members hints at an over-reliance on lawyers who are fearful of collusion claims and antitrust litigation.

“The resulting void has been exploited by the Saudis and makes both tours appear to be playing defense for the same, stale system and offering nothing new to players or fans.  Given free rein, those lawyers will one day proudly boast of how no one overran their majestic, deserted castle.

“The PGA Tour, in particular, has long needed a radical overhaul.  Its corporate culture lacks entrepreneurial spirit, values familiarity over innovation, and had never faced a credible threat to its dominance, business model or player loyalty.  

“Which might explain why, when finally confronted with such a threat, its response has been ponderous, achingly slow, and poor in laying out the alternative to golf being owned by the Saudis.

“It cannot rely on public revulsion at Saudi sportswashing to assist them, because that clearly isn’t working.”

COMMENT:  Faced with the obvious LIV threat, Lynch is right again.  The PGA Tour has no choice but to do a better job of presenting the alternative to LIV – real, genuine competitive golf worthy of affection from the masses, including me.

Consider just this one example.  Last week, in the first LIV event, Charl Schwartzel took home the first prize – a handout of $4 million – and everybody who played got a lot of money, including the golfer who finished last and did not break 75 in any of the three rounds of the LIV exhibition.

The contrast:  Yesterday, the golf was riveting in the final round of The U.S. Open at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts.  Englishman Matt Fitzpatrick prevailed over all the others, including by a stroke over Americans Will Zalatoris and Scottie Scheffler.

Great competitive golf.  Fun to watch.  I wish for more of 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 of 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.

On this Fathers’ Day, I remember my father.

And the memories are ALL positive, a gift in a day when some sons and daughters may not retain such memories.

I toyed with writing something else on this Fathers’ Day, but doing so would not have been appropriate.  Better to reflect on what Fathers’ Day means to me.

A few specifics regarding my father:

• He was ALWAYS there for me.  He had four other children, but he found time to invest in all of us.

• He always expressed love for our Mom. 

• He expressed his faith in God every day.  He accepted Christ’s free gift of salvation and encouraged us to do the same. 

• He made commitment to church critical for all of us.  But, not church for its own sake; church as an expression of love for God.

Today, about 15 years after his death, I remember my father fondly every day.  I miss him!

And, I only hope I can have some of the qualities of my father as I love my son and my daughter and their families. They deserve my 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 of 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 answer to the question in the headline?

Watergate!

That name of a residence building in Washington, D.C. became a household word as all of us watched and learned about what the word meant:  A case of a government gone amuck – at least part of the government, the Republicans under their leader, Richard Nixon.

I remember a lot about Watergate, but the term did not confine itself to a specific day.  We remember where we were on the day the first Americans landed on the moon, or the day President John F. Kennedy was shot.

Watergate lasted for months.

Over the months, we watched a presidential Administration implode, in part because of tenacious journalism practiced by such artists as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

This morning, the Wall Street Journal carried a solid editorial on the anniversary of Watergate.  It is worth reading, so I repeat it below.  And, I say worth reading for its implications for the current misdeeds – even alleged crimes – of another of the worst presidents in U.S. history, Donald Trump.

He deserves Nixon’s fate, which, in this case, would mean he would not be allowed to run for president again.

So, read on.

**********

Fifty years ago Friday, burglars broke into the Watergate complex — and the rest is more than just history.  The scandal that ended in President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation from office helped shape our modern politics, reforming the government, revitalizing the press, and redefining the parties.  Now, the country confronts another generation-defining crisis, and events half a century old feel as relevant as if they happened yesterday.

The Nixon White House’s illegal sabotage of its opponents and the coverup that followed were examples of government going wrong.  What happened after these crimes showed government going almost exactly right:  Congress investigated, the news media reported, the people read, watched, listened, and spoke — and eventually, enough members of the Republican elite put country over party to lead to the departure of a corrupt, dangerous president.

Today, Congress is investigating again:  A select committee in the House of Representatives is examining what happened on January 6, 2021, when an armed mob stormed the U.S. Capitol seeking to overturn the results of a lawful election — in part because a president, Donald Trump, exhorted them to.

Yet, most members of the GOP appear afraid to utter a word against the ex-president, who continues to hold their party in his grip.  Worse still, most refuse to engage at all in this truth-seeking effort, or even to put much stock in the concept of truth itself.  Not only do the two sides today share little when it comes to policy or philosophy.  In many cases, they don’t even share a reality.

So in 2022, as Congress tries to get to the facts when facts have gone out of fashion, is there anything to be learned from 1972?  Scandals happened in the decades before, from the Red Scare, to the Bay of Pigs invasion, to the misguided decisions that mired the nation in the Vietnam War; scandals happened in the years after, from the Iran-contra affair, to the claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the mental and physical torment of prisoners during the war on terrorism.  All surely contributed to the erosion of trust in government to its depressing low of 20-some per cent today.

Yet Watergate shook the nation as little else before and changed it — in some ways for better, by encouraging the press to hold government to account and the public to pay attention, as well as by ushering in legislation that served the same goals in areas such as campaign finance and intelligence, and in some ways for worse, by planting the seed of anti-government sentiment that has since grown like a strangling weed.

January 6 has shaken the nation, too.  The environment for needed change — whether updates to the Electoral Count Act and safeguards for voting rights, or a broader attempt by both parties to reconcile over common causes such as democracy and the rule of law — looks, admittedly, hostile. But enough people — from those in the chambers of Congress to those in any spot in the country near a television set or a newsroom desk — cared 50 years ago to make government work again when it appeared to have broken.

The worst mistake anyone can make today is to give up on it because it has broken again.

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 of 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 wrote earlier this week about famous meltdowns in the U.S. Open. 

So, as I promised, as the nation’s championship pro golf tournament starts today, I will turn to the positive.

One way to do so is to cite information about the tournament, which will be held at storied The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Another is to list players who, from my perch out West with nothing other than interest to commend my views, have a decent chance to win this week.

First, the course.

Here’s the way the Washington Post described it:

“The 2022 U.S. Open most certainly has not been supersized.

“Some might say its length — a modest 7,254 yards — is more reasonable than in the recent past.  Nobody will argue that some of the holes on the classic layout at The Country Club are downright short.

“The USGA brought its top-line event — the toughest test in golf — to an old-school course built on a small piece of property, the sort of layout that is becoming more obsolete in big-time golf.  It has a drivable par-4, a reachable par 5, and will also feature a par-3 that could play less than 100 yards.

“’Really a cool style of golf,’ said top-ranked Scottie Scheffler, hoping to add a U.S. Open title to the green jacket he won at the Masters earlier this year.

“Scheffler and 155 others will be forced to think their way around a course filled with blind tee shots.  In practice rounds, players were finding their lines by looking at flags far in the distance and fescue-covered rocks perched on hills just ahead.”

Now, I would add that, as a regular, not a pro, golfer, 7,200+ yards is too much for me and then some.  But I’m glad that USGA chose to hold its national tournament at such a site, one that sits in a toney neighborhood near Boston and that, normally in these days of major golf, doesn’t have enough room to host the golf, much less all the corporate sponsorship tents.

Yet, those of us who watch this week could find ourselves remembering at least two things – (a) the movie coverage of how Francis Oiumet, an amateur, upset the pros at The Country Club to win golf’s biggest major in 1913, or (b) when pro Justin Leonard sunk a 75-foot putt in 1999 to secure the Ryder Club for America.

On to the golfers.

With the New York Times, I cite these names who have a decent chance to win this week based on recent past performance:

Scottie Scheffler:  Forget about the missed cut in last month’s P.G.A. Championship.  Scheffler, the No. 1 player in the world, rebounded with a second-place finish the next week at the Charles Schwab Challenge in Fort Worth, Texas.  And, if not for another golfer, his friend Sam Burns who won the event with a huge putt on the first playoff hole, Scheffler would have five victories this season.

Justin Thomas:  Thomas is my new favorite golfer based on his performance, as well as his love for the traditions of the game, coming as he does from a father and grandfather who both were or are golf pros.

Winning a second major, as Thomas did at the P.G.A. this year, puts a golfer on a new plateau.  Winning a third would elevate him even further. Only 47 players have collected three or more major championships.

Will Zalatoris:  This is a new name, but it is hard to move past Zalatoris, given his quick rise to five top 10s in his last seven majors.

Rory McIlroy:  No one should forget McIlroy who shot a 62 last Sunday in Canada to post his 21st tour victory.  He is still trying to win his first major since the 2014 P.G.A. Championship.  What were the odds that a drought in majors would last this long?

He had his chances this year, finishing second at the Masters and eighth at the P.G.A.  McIlroy needs to start strong, as he did at the P.G.A. with a five-under 65, and stay within range, even if he isn’t at his best.

Dustin Johnson:  In a way, I hate to cite Johnson’s name because of his defection to LIV golf, despite all PGA Tour has done for and with him in recent years.  Still, he a good player who could threaten to win in any “real tournament” he plays – and I use the word “real” to distinguish PGA Tour events from the LIV “exhibitions.”

If I was choosing my own favorite this week, I would name Thomas.  He has all the shots in the golf bag and, further, he tends to know when they will come out.

And, he has one more thing going for him.  His caddy is Jim “Bones” MacKay, one of the best going and “Bones” has a knack for bringing out the best in Thomas.

So, I say, “play away.”

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 of 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.

About golf, there’s a lot to consider writing today:

1. Reactions to the start of the “exhibition” LIV events
2. Realities of the great competitive environment and result at the Canadian Open last weekend
3. And, owing to an idea from my Golf Week on-line magazine, “top U.S. Open Meltdowns,” it’s possible to remember those bad results.
4. And, what I’ll do later this week, after the Open starts, is to focus on the great competition we have ahead for the next few days – and it will be good to focus on golf, not politics.

Mostly, for today, I’ll pick #3, but not before offering this quote from an article in the Washington Post by long-time sportswriter Rick Reilly.  His comments on the first LIV exhibition overseas are worth considering and I cannot help but repeat them because, (a) they are sanguine, (b) they are written very well, and (c) I agree with them.

So, here is the way Reilly started his story:

“LIV Golf, Saudi Arabia’s effort to sportswash its murderous human rights record by buying off pro golfers with stupid money (Phil Mickelson: reportedly $200 million), is working.

“The inaugural event of this LIV and Let Die Tour, with a massive $25 million total purse, finished Saturday at the Centurion Club north of London.  LIV has already signed up nine majors’ winners, with more big-name defectors to come.

“These LIV golfers know the Saudis butchered Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.  They know the Saudis jail dissenters, criminalize homosexuality and oppress women.  And in response, the players have sent a message loud and clear:  We don’t care. We want bigger jets.

“It’s hilarious to hear Mickelson and the others try to justify working for blood money.  Well, sure, he knows the Saudis are “scary mother——s,” as he told his biographer, Alan Shipnuck.  But he also says:  “I’ve also seen the good that the game of golf has done through history.”

“Right.  Nothing relieves the downtrodden people of a despotic nation like a well-struck 6-iron.  Remember when Kim Jong Il shot 34 one day and the North Korean people suddenly weren’t starving?  Yeah, neither do I.”

So, with that, on to the U.S. Open meltdowns, which I mention now, though my thoughts, as of Thursday, will trend what promises to be another great competition.

Anyone who has followed golf for a few years probably knows the meltdown Golf Week would cite as the most significant one.  Yes.  It was Mickelson’s debacle at Winged Foot in New York in 2006.

“Gunning for his third consecutive major championship and his first U.S. Open win, Mickelson had the gift box wrapped in 2006.  All he needed was to tie the bow.  Mickelson shared the third-round lead and arrived at the par-four 72nd hole at Winged Foot’s vaunted West course one shot clear of the field.  A par would win and a bogey would tie.

“He made neither.  Having only found two fairways all day, Mickelson nonetheless hit driver—and sliced it way left, in the vicinity of a hospitality tent.  Eschewing the safe chip back into the fairway, he tried to slice a 3-iron onto the green, but his effort plunked a tree and dropped 25 yards in front of him.

“His third shot plugged in a greenside bunker.  He blasted out—and found the rough.  A fifth shot left him 10 feet from the cup, from where he putted in for double bogey, handing Geoff Ogilvy a one-shot win.  Mickelson summed up his nightmarish sequence succinctly and accurately:  ‘I am such an idiot.’”

Moving on, here’s the quick list of other major meltdowns in the Open, each of which I remember:

• Retief Goosen survives a putting debacle at Southern Hills (2001)
• D.J. Johnson soars to a bloated 82 in a Pebble Beach collapse (2010)
• Colin Montgomery’s miscue costs him a major (2006)
• “Two-Chip” T.C. Chen goes from record-breaker to scorecard-wrecker (1985)
• Arnold Palmer makes history—of the wrong kind (1966)
• Sam Snead self-immolates with a final-hole snowman (1939)

It’s a perverse fact about golf that some who watch hope for meltdowns.  I am not one of those, I say with appropriate modesty.

I hope for great golf and, when someone wins, I hope they do so “by winning,” not “by someone losing.”

So, starting Thursday, I’ll be watching TV to see if “someone wins.”

Should be a great experience.

And, I also hope it will have the same kind of great golf as occurred in the Canadian Open last week.  There, Rory McElroy won over Tony Finau and Justin Thomas.  All were in the final threesome and each produced incredible shots.

At one point, Thomas, one of my favorite golfers, produced six birdies in a row.  Yes.  Six! 

Then, he didn’t play the last two holes well.  McElroy did.  So did Finau.  Great golf!

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 of 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.

It was a privilege for me to be Pronghorn Golf Resort in Bend, Oregon about a week ago.

The occasion:  One of several final stage qualifiers for the U.S. Open, which will be held at Brookline Golf Club in Massachusetts starting June 16.

A total of 66 players teed it up on the Nicklaus Signature Course at Pronghorn trying to earn one of three spots into the Open.

Here are the three who made it to the Open from this qualifier:

• Brady Calkins, from Chehalis, Washington, shot 68-68

• Isaiah Salinda, from San Francisco, California, also shot 68-68

• Ben Lorenz, from Peoria, Arizona shot 71-67 (winning a playoff to secure the third spot)

Why was I there?

Well, on behalf of the Oregon Golf Association, which ran the tournament for the United States Golf Association, I had the privilege of serving as the starter on hole #1, both for the first 18 holes, as well as the second 18. Because, as you see, it was 36-hole qualifier.

So, I got to watch 66 players hit their tee shots during the day.  In a way, both impressive and intimidating.

With this experience, you can understand that I will be watching for the above three names to see how they fare at Brookline under the pressure of the U.S. Open.  They wanted to be there enough to try to qualify.  Now, they have the challenge to perform.

Another interesting fact was that a golfer from Mission Viejo, California, Michael Block, was trying again to make it to the Open.  He was the last player off in the queue for both the morning and afternoon rounds.  I talked with him on the tee and both of us remembered that, in the final stage qualifier held at Portland Golf Club several years, he made it to the Open that year.

It was the same year that, of all people, Mike Weir, the Canadian golfer who now plays on the Senior PGA Tour, showed up in Portland, but ended up not advancing through the qualifier (and, unfortunately, in the PGA Tour’s Canadian Open, now running in Toronto, Weir missed making the cut there by one stroke, though he was playing against much younger golfers).  He would have loved to contend in his country’s national openl.

Block remembers fondly that he beat Weir and, with Lucas Herbert at Portland Golf Club, advanced to the Open.  Alas, Block did not make the cut in the Open that year, while Herbert has gone to make a mark on the Tour, winning enough money to stay eligible.

At Pronghorn, it turned out that a variety of players from the Northwest region tried to qualify, but didn’t make it.  For them, I imagine that it was still a good experience as they worked to lift their games from the college ranks to the national championship arena.

Here’s another interesting final fact about this year’s Open:

Any professional golfer or amateur with a Handicap Index that does not exceed 1.4 was eligible to enter.  More than 8,600 golfers entered local qualifiers and, of that total, 500 advanced to final qualifying stages, one of which was the Pronghorn event.  Only a few then went on to make it to the Open.

Tough odds to go all the way, but that’s the way it should be for the country’s “open” golf tournament. 

Know this – I’ll be glued to the TV for the four days at Brookline.

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 of 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.

It’s called “sportswashing.”

It’s what Saudi Arabia is trying to do by spending billions of dollars to go after the PGA Tour by creating its own series of what I call “golf exhibitions.”

I hope the Saudis won’t win.  I hope the country’s intolerable human rights record will remain in the limelight, no matter how much money is spent to wash it away.

Recently, I have demurred from writing about the challenge to the PGA Golf Tour being orchestrated – and funded – by the Saudi Arabian government.

I demur no longer.

This blog summarizes my comments, which may not mean much, but they are still mine, so I value them, even if no one else does.

The latest development is that, as American players teed off in the first round of an LIV golf tournament overseas Thursday, the PGA Tour reacted immediately.  Emphasis on immediately.

The players who chose to play in the LIV exhibition were informed they had been suspended from the PGA Tour for violating their commitments to that tour.  The suspensions were meted out even to players who had resigned from the Tour.

So, here’s my take.

Point #1:  I have a hard time believing why some players have defected from the PGA Tour, golf’s best playing situation, even after the Tour has done so much for them, even if the PGA Tour is not perfect in its administration.  There is a way to effect change.  It’s to work within the system to prompt improvements, not to defect.

The PGA Tour has huge tradition to ignore.  Or, if the players are new and just getting started, the potential of the PGA Tour is immense, if they play for the love of the game and not just for a financial handout.  Better to acknowledge the legacy of the Tour and try to improve it.

Point #2:  I think players should not just opt for “the money,” as attractive as that may be at first blush.  They should consider the source of that money, which is the Saudi regime and its intolerable human rights record.  It was only a couple months ago that the regime lined up 81 men and summarily executed them by firing squad simply because they disagreed with regime leaders.

In the Washington Post, here’s the way a writer, Barry Svrluga, described the Saudi’s detestable record:

“Left unsaid:  In choosing what’s best for themselves and their families, in providing balance, in pursuing the freedom to play wherever they want, in sustaining their business, the breakaway group of golfers assembling in London this week are articulating clearly they care not an iota where their money comes from.

“This is worth stating and restating:  The money these golfers are guaranteed before they even tee it up Thursday in LIV’s inaugural event, the money they will pursue in purses over the course of the series — it’s blood money.  The investment arm of the Saudi Arabian government provides it all, and the Saudi Arabian government is a murderous regime that killed Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, that continues to wreak havoc with innocent civilians in Yemen, and that very much wants to use international sports to provide cover for all of it.”

Plus, this from Jay Monahan, CEO of the PGA Tour who – no surprise — is biased in favor of the organization he runs:

“These players have made their choice for their own financial-based reasons.  But they can’t demand the same PGA Tour membership benefits, considerations, opportunities, and platform as you (as he wrote to players who are remaining with the Tour).  That expectation disrespects you, our fans, and our partners.”

And, finally, this from PGA player Rory McElroy who has said he will remain with the PGA Tour:

“Any decision that you make in your life that’s purely for money usually doesn’t end up going the right way.  Obviously, money is a deciding factor in a lot of things in this world, but, if it’s purely for money, it never seems to go the way you want it to.”

Point #3:  Just because some American corporations have made the misjudgment to do business with Saudi Arabia does not provide an excuse for golfers to do so.  It’s wrong for corporations; it’s wrong for golfers.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Point #4:  Just think about the LIV tournaments.  They won’t be tournaments.  They will be exhibitions.  Even golfers who finish last in the 48-man fields will get $120,000.  Guaranteed.  And that comes on top of appearance money.

Point #5:  It is abundantly clear that what the Saudis are doing is “sportswashing,” a relatively new term I used in the lead to this blog and which means that the country is trying to wash away its intolerable human rights record with sports money. 

Here is the way Golf Digest put it:

“The PIF (the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, which, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, has $580 billion in assets) is essentially the financial arm of the Saudi Arabian government, which has been accused of numerous human-rights violations.  

“To improve its reputation, especially to the Western world, Saudi Arabia has heavily invested in various athletic organizations and events, a practice often referred to as “sportswashing.”  This exercise, particularly when used by state-run groups, is considered a form of propaganda to distract the public from its abuses.  The most famous example of sportswashing is when Nazi Germany hosted the 1936 Summer Olympics.”

So, my bottom line, at least for the moment, is that PGA Tour players who have cast their lot with the LIV tour are off my list of favorite players.  That, unfortunately, includes Phil Mickelson.  I will decline to watch their “exhibitions.”

But, forget the to’ing and fro’ing over all this, at least for the moment.  Including my points.

The issue will not be decided until it ends up court. 

The PGA Tour, like any other employer or organization, believes it has the discretion to enact rules of conduct for its members, employees, and independent contractors.  One of the provisions in the PGA Tour Player Handbook and Tournament Regulations is that each PGA Tour member acknowledges the commissioner, the Tour’s Policy Board and the appeals committee have the authority permanently to ban a member from playing in competing events, unless specific permission is granted to play in such events.

And, so, I will choose to watch and support real golf, not LIV, which, to me, is nothing more than sportswashing with blood money.

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 of 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 question is this blog headline notes an interesting development in the Washington Post last weekend.

There, two very capable analysts – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – showed up again with a great joint post under this headline:  “Woodward and Bernstein thought Nixon defined corruption. Then came Trump.”

Remember the two reporters/analysts.  In short-hand, they have come in some quarters to be called “Woodstein.”

Together, they uncovered the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon’s presidency and, what they wrote prompted Nixon’s resignation in disgrace.

They were memorialized in the movie, “All the President’s Men,” which is one of my favorite movies of all time – and I watch it again whenever it shows up in various streams.

The movie captured the great work of Woodward and Bernstein.  As a journalist by background, I was impressed by their diligence and spirit in the face of long odds.  They persevered and wrote a great story, one that literally saved the country.

Watergate – I remember it like it was yesterday – is now 50 years old, which prompted Post editors to ask Woodward and Bernstein to reflect on Watergate and all that has followed.

One additional piece of good news for me is that the two writers link the failed presidential administrations of Nixon and Donald Trump, the latter of whom, in this day and age, has gone far beyond Nixon to seditious conduct. 

By rights, Trump’s conduct should result in time in prison for him, but, of course, he is still at it, with no chagrin for the bad he already has produced for America, nor for the negative implications of his conduct for the future of American democracy.

To whet your appetite to read the Post piece by Woodward and Bernstein, I provide this selection of quotes, with obvious and deserved credit to them for solid journalism.

• The heart of Nixon’s criminality was his successful subversion of the electoral process — the most fundamental element of American democracy.  He accomplished it through a massive campaign of political espionage, sabotage and disinformation that enabled him to literally determine who his opponent would be in the presidential election of 1972.
• Donald Trump not only sought to destroy the electoral system through false claims of voter fraud and unprecedented public intimidation of state election officials, but he also then attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his duly elected successor, for the first time in American history.
• In a deception that exceeded even Nixon’s imagination, Trump and a group of lawyers, loyalists and White House aides devised a strategy to bombard the country with false assertions that the 2020 election was rigged and that Trump had really won.  They zeroed in on the January 6 session as the opportunity to overturn the election’s result. Leading up to that crucial date, Trump’s lawyers circulated memos with manufactured claims of voter fraud that had counted the dead, underage citizens, prisoners, and out-of-state residents.
• Unlike Nixon, Trump accomplished his subversion largely in public. He pursued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election process from campaign rally podiums, the White House and his popular Twitter feed.  Nonetheless, he lost 61 of his court challenges, even from judges he had appointed.  After Election Day, Trump began another, more deadly assault on the electoral process.  “JANUY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!” he tweeted on December 30, 2020, from Mar-a-Lago, where he was spending the holidays.

• Both Nixon and Trump created a conspiratorial world in which the U.S. Constitution, laws and fragile democrat traditions were to be manipulated or ignored, political opponents and the media were “enemies,” and there were few or no restraints on the powers entrusted to presidents.
• Fear of losing and being considered a loser was a common thread for Nixon and Trump.
• Another dominating personal trait binds Nixon and Trump together: Each viewed the world through the prism of hate.
• Both Nixon and Trump have been willing prisoners of their compulsions to dominate, and to gain and hold political power through virtually any means.  In leaning so heavily on these dark impulses, they defined two of the most dangerous and troubling eras in American history.

There?  “Woodstein” deliver(s) a solid rebuke of two of the worst presidents in U.S. history – Nixon and Trump.  Nixon is gone, but Trump continues to promote sedition.  It’s just that, so far, he has not been convicted in court, or the court of public opinion.

I hope that time will come.

Error! Filename not specified.

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 of 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 toyed this morning with writing another blog about guns – my phrase, “gun safety,” not gun control – but then deference got the better of me.

After reading a column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post – he is a great writer, plus a great thinker – I decided that what he wrote would stand the test of time and criticism better than what I could produce.

So, as I do from time to time, I devoted my blog to Gerson’s column.  He asks this what he called this “lingering” question:  “Is the slaughter of innocents the unavoidable price of freedom?”

His answer?  No.

Here is Gerson’s column that appeared under this headline:  “The GOP spin on gun rights is wrong — morally and legally.”

Error! Filename not specified.After a new round of well-armed hate crimes and child murder, the congressional process to pass gun regulations remains the harvesting of low-hanging fruit. The minimalist outcome (if there is an outcome) will be advocated under the stirring slogan “better than nothing.”

Which would be true. Any kind of agreement would be good for democracy, demonstrating that the creaking machinery of self-government can still turn. But the triumph of legislative incrementalism is unlikely to feel equal to the real-world provocation: the effect of advanced weaponry on small bodies.

And it will not answer the lingering question: Is the slaughter of innocents the unavoidable price of freedom?

A significant group of Americans believe it is. In a recent CBS-YouGov poll, 44 percent of Republicans agreed that mass shootings are “unfortunately something we have to accept” in a free country. It is the “unfortunately” that gets to me.

This is a case involving unequally distributed peril. For most observers, such misfortune amounts to reading a depressing newspaper article. For the families involved, it means suffering beyond measure and grief beyond relief. Government cannot take all the risk out of life. But is it permissible to “accept” the risk of murder on behalf of other people’s children? Is it moral to make our peace with such evident evil?

Any consideration of gun regulation in the United States immediately involves a debate about our fundamental law. Through most of American history, the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — determined the meaning of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This made sense in a country where the entire western frontier was ragged and bloody with danger. Every able-bodied man was expected to possess a useful weapon to fight for the security of his state. And at least part of the reason to stay armed was that many people feared and opposed the accumulation of federal power.

The Virginia Constitution made this connection explicit, saying “that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State; … that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

The conservative legal revolution of the past few decades has sought to decouple the two clauses of the Second Amendment. The prefatory clause has been dismissed as but one application of the operative clause, which establishes an individual right of gun ownership for purposes of self-defense.

Some have called this a conservative application of the evolving Constitution. But since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Supreme Court has upheld gun ownership as a right, not just as a precondition for the common defense.

Heller overturned D.C.’s prohibition of nearly all handguns, affirming these as the weapons of choice for Americans engaged in self-defense. But the ruling made clear that the Second Amendment does not create an absolute right to gun ownership.

It is still permissible, Heller states, to restrict the gun rights of felons and the mentally ill. It is still allowable to prohibit the carrying of firearms in government buildings and schools. It is still lawful to ban particularly “dangerous and unusual weapons.” (Sorry, no grenade launchers or guided missiles.)  And it is worth noting that since Heller, lower courts have generally upheld the gun restrictions they have considered.

This means that one of the main pro-gun arguments — that reasonable gun restrictions violate sacred, natural rights — is somewhere on the far side of laughable ignorance. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right of 18-year-olds to buy assault rifles. Many Republicans seem intent on combining the stability and wisdom of teenagers with military-grade firepower.

This issue is also pregnant with paradox. For years, judicial conservatives have tried to reposition the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to gun ownership. But now, some MAGA Republicans want to return to the prefatory clause, with a twist.

Like some Jeffersonians, they fear concentrated federal power as a threat to liberty. But what does it mean when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) refers to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as a “1776 moment” or embraces the Second Amendment as permission for insurrectionary violence?

Does this indicate that the future targets in a MAGA war against tyranny might be police officers and tax collectors, soldiers, and FBI agents?  Merely playing with such ideas is an invitation to the unstable.

It is past time forRepublican politicians to embrace some risk in the cause of life — and end their dance with death.