PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 bumped into a new word this morning – risible.  At least a new word for me.

It came in this paragraph IN column written by Washington Post writer Max Boot:

“In all, 64 per cent of the House Republican caucus showed that defeating Democrats matters more to them than preserving U.S. democracy.  What made this suit all the more RISIBLE is that some of these lawmakers hail from the very states whose votes they were trying to overturn.  None of them, needless to say, claimed that their own victories were tainted by fraud.

What does the word mean?

The dictionary says this:

“Inclined to laugh, or laughable.”

And the context illustrates the point.  U.S. Republicans have been laughable in their inability to accept the fact that “their” candidate, Donald Trump, has been confirmed to be a loser by the Electoral College vote yesterday to confirm the presidency of Joe Biden.

So, again for me, words matter as commentators write about politics – and the word “risible” matters, which means I will know how to use word from now on. 

The conduct of many public officials – led by Republican Members of Congress – is risible.

There are other words to describe Republican conduct.  Abhorrent.  Treasonous or nearly so.  Anti-democracy.  Lunacy.  Cowardly.  To name just a few.

And, while risible is a term of derision, the actions of many Republicans these days makes me want to cry, not laugh.  One recent example struck closer to home than Washingto, D.C.  It occurred a few days ago when some Republican members of the Oregon Senate made the risible decision to sign on to a legal brief supporting the State of Texas appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out votes in four other states.

If the Oregon Rs would have waited only a few more minutes before acting on the brief, they would have seen that the Court threw out the Texas case as being – well – risible.

Washington Post writer Catherin Rampell also dealt with Republican intransigence in her column this morning:

“Over the years, Republican politicians seemed many times to be on the cusp of a reckoning — a realization that a lunatic fringe had seized control of the party’s more pragmatic center and that conspiracy-theorizing, race-baiting, science-denigrating demagogues had transformed the GOP base into ungovernable paranoiacs.  The situation seemed untenable; the fever had to break eventually.

“Yet, the party’s radicalization continued, and the reckoning never came.  Today, U.S. democracy is paying the price as millions of Americans refuse to acknowledge the results of a legitimate election, and their leaders appear too cowardly or too powerless to disrupt the collective delusion.”

A few months ago, a former partner of mine in CFM Advocates contended that ALL Republicans were complicit in Trump’s efforts to become a dictator, thus trampling on democracy values.

I demurred, saying that not “all” Republicans were bowing at the Trump altar.  I still believe that to be the case, but so-called “Republican leaders” in Congress risk giving the entire party a bad name by their failure to stand up for America.

To repeat, their conduct is risible.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

As we head toward the end of one year and the start of another, various journalism outlets will be trying to characterize what we have been through during the last 12 months.

PEW Research beat many others to the challenge last week by summarizing what it called “20 striking findings” from 2020.

PEW Research knows that it is doing.

It is is a non-partisan “fact tank” that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.  It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. 

And a key distinction:  It does not take policy positions, a fact that helps to give its information credibility.

I receive frequent newsletters from PEW and the information I receive has helped in various ways, including by forming judgments in my recent role as a volunteer member of a committee formed by Common Cause to propose ways to increases a commitment to ethics in public life.

So, with that background, here is a list of the 20 striking trends from 2020:

#1/  Since the very beginning of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak, Democrats have been far more likely than Republicans to see COVID-19 as a “major threat” to public health.

#2/ The pandemic had a dramatic effect on international travel: By April, around nine-tenths of the world’s population (91%) was living in a country with partially or fully closed borders.

#3/  For the first time since at least the Great Depression, a majority of young adults in the U.S. were living with their parents this year.

#4/  Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the share of British adults with a favorable view of the EU rose to its highest level on record.

#5/  International views of China turned much more negative in 2020, with many people criticizing its handling of COVID-19. 

#6/  Around eight-in-ten registered voters in the U.S. (83%) said in the summer that it “really mattered” who won this year’s presidential election, the highest share in any presidential election year since at least 2000.

#7/  Trump’s approval rating has been more sharply divided along partisan lines than that of any president in the modern era of polling.

#8/  Amid widespread economic hardship caused by COVID-19, around four-in-ten U.S. adults said in August that they or someone in their household had been laid off, lost their job or taken a pay cut.

#9/  More than half of Americans personally know someone who has been hospitalized or died due to COVID-19.

#10/ A large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say there is some kind of lesson or set of lessons for mankind to learn from the coronavirus outbreak, a ]nd about a third (35%) say these lessons were sent by God.

#11/ In several countries, the share of people with a favorable view of the U.S. fell in 2020 to its lowest point on record. 

#12/ Biden and Trump supporters say they fundamentally disagree with each other not just on political priorities, but on core American values.

#13/ Across a range of measures, Republicans are far more negative than Democrats in their assessments of the news media.

#14/ A small share of highly active Twitter users – most of whom are Democrats – produce the vast majority of tweets from U.S. adults.

#15/ Only around a quarter of U.S. Hispanics (23%) have heard of the term “Latinx,” and just 3% say they use it to describe themselves.

#16/ Around half of Americans (49%) say the Bible should have a great deal or some influence on the laws of the U.S., including 28% who say it should take precedence when it conflicts with the will of the people.

#17/ The Black Lives Matter movement drew widespread public support and online engagement following the police killing of George Floyd in May.

#18/ Amid calls to “defund the police,” only a quarter of Americans said in June that they favor a reduction in spending on policing in their area.

#19/ A growing share of Americans have heard of the group of conspiracy theories known as QAnon, and a substantial portion of Republicans who are aware of it say it is a good thing for the country.

#20/ In a year in which big tech companies faced growing scrutiny, nine-in-ten Republicans – and around six-in-ten Democrats (59%) – said it’s likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints.

What does all this mean?  Well, perhaps obviously, the perceptions are in the eye of the beholder.  Mine are two-fold:

• The range of issues PEW Research deals with is, in and of itself, “striking.” From politics, to religion, to racism, PEW provides a lot of food for thought.

• That range also prompts many of us to reassess biases we have formed over months, if not years.  And that’s good for all of us to be challenged in that way.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 easiest answer to the question in the headline is that there isn’t one.

Consider these facts:

• Democrats strengthened their hold on power in Oregon, winning the only statewide office – Secretary of State — that Republicans – had held previously.  The Ds also confirmed super-majorities in the Oregon House and Senate.
• Oregon Republicans took only a small bit of solace as they were able to avoid the Ds winning “walk-out proof” majorities in both chambers. 
• Republicans also retained the one representative they had in Congress from Oregon, the Eastern Oregon seat occupied by retiring Greg Walden and now held by former state senator Cliff Bentz.

These results tend to confirm that the “two Oregons” issue – urban versus rural and the reverse – is still alive and well in our state.

It has been contended that urban Democrats who run the Legislature don’t understand rural Oregon.  And, on the other side, it is has been contended that rural Republicans don’t understand urban issues.

Never the twain shall meet?

The reality is that the best solutions to pressing public policy problems lie somewhere in the middle.  Finding those solutions will require lawmakers who are willing to give and get in the formation of compromise, which, don’t forget, is the definition of politics.  It has has been lost in recent years.

If you wonder about whether there are examples where finding the middle ground worked, here is one that may not be the best to cite, but does illustrate the give-and-take of working for the center.

When, as a lobbyist, I represented the Port of Portland, one of my assignments was to convince the governor and the legislature to make money available to deepen the Columbia River channel to allow deeper-draft cargo ships to ply their way up and down the river off the Pacific Ocean.

A further complexity was that the deal would require money from both the State of Washington (which shares ports along the river with Oregon) and the U.S. government.  Further, the cost of the project likely would require allocations over more than just one two-year biennium in Oregon.

To make a long story short, I was able to convince key legislators to begin appropriating channel deepening money.  In return, I had to accept amendments from three legislators who wanted the state to fund projects in their districts.  Call it “port barrel” if you will, but it was worth it for me to accept the additional allocations in order to get channel deepening started in Oregon.  Economic benefits would result for the region – both urban and rural Oregon.

It was a compromise, an example of where the center could exist in Oregon politics.

Many political observers – including me — hold out little hope that centrist politics will work in Washington, D.C., especially as Donald Trump makes a messy, forced exit from his performance as, easily, the worst president in U.S. history – and as various Republicans buttress his challenges against U.S. democracy.

But, I also am unwilling to throw out an aspiration that middle ground can be found in Oregon.

As the 2022 legislature starts in a couple months, I hope out home that controlling Democrats can be smart about how they lead without rendering minority viewpoints to the scrap heap.  I also hold out hope that Republicans, in the minority, can be smart about how to play the follower role without sacrificing core principles.

If the goal is to produce what’s best for urban AND rural Oregon, the two sides can meet in the middle.

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

Now that the election is over – make sure someone tells Donald Trump – lawmakers in Oregon are planning to trek to Salem for their long legislative session, which lasts essentially from January through June.

In this blog, I repeat a summary of four major questions legislators should ask as they consider any aspect of the State of Oregon budget or any proposed new piece of legislation.  The four questions usually go unasked or unanswered, so I repeat them here.

First, however, this context for the coming legislative session.

Democrats are in charge everywhere in Salem – in the House, in the Senate, in the Governor’s Office and in all other statewide offices.

In the House and the Senate, they enjoy super-majority margins of control, which means they can pass new taxes without any Republican votes.  They do not enjoy what have come to be called “quorum-proof” margins of control, which means Republicans can walk out if they view no other alternative to oppose legislation they believe imperils rural Oregon.

In other words, the “two-Oregons” issue – urban versus rural and the reverse – is alive and well in our state.

Against this backdrop, Governor Kate Brown released her “Recommended Budget for 2021-23,” on December 1, which will set the stage for months of to’ing and fro’ing over how to spend taxpayer dollars.  At the moment, she has pinned her budget on receipt of more federal anti-virus money, which is under consideration in Congress with no optimism about whether a bill will pass or not.

As is the case with start of any legislative session, I believe the time is right to emphasize again questions legislators should ask:

1.  What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?  This question is seldom raised or discussed.

2.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play?  The answer, if the question is even raised, is rarely no.

3.  If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending — in other words, what is the expected return on investment?  This is an usually a foreign concept.

4.  How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for money to fund its operations?  This is seldom discussed, unless raised by those lobbying for Oregon businesses or for individual taxpayers.

If legislators would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better legislature and better results.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

Almost every commentator is writing these days about President-Elect Joe Biden’s attempts to form his Administration more than a month before he takes over on January 20, 2021.

I add my voice to the mix, though I have no inside information on any of this from my post in the cheap seats out West.  I just have a few observations.

The good news so far:

• The nominees represent diversity of thought, opinion and ethnicity.

• The nominees are committed to the success of the Biden-Harris Administration rather than just their own standing, thus evoking trust which is necessary between a president and those who for him or her.  Nor will the nominees be expected to bow at the altar of the President as was the case with Donald Trump’s appointees.

• The nominees have experience in their areas of responsibility, which, it seems to me, should be a major credential given what is at stake for our country.

In each of these ways, Biden’s nominations illustrate a stark change from Trump who nominated many persons unqualified for the jobs they accepted.  And, if those he hired did not express fealty to Trump, he fired them, sometimes, incredibly, by a tweet, as was the case a few weeks ago when Defense Department Director Mark Esper departed.

None of this suggests that it will be clear sailing for Biden’s nominees when the time comes for Senate confirmation in what is likely to be a chamber controlled by Republicans.

In some cases, Republicans may hold grudges for how they believed Democrats opposed Trump’s nominees.

In other cases, there will be more genuine issues, including those related to Biden’s nomination of retired General Lloyd Austin to be Secretary of the Department of Defense.  Some senators contend that the department should be led by an experienced civilian, not a retired military leader.  The theory is that military should not have such great influence over its own future.

To get Austin over the confirmation hurdle, Biden will first have to get Congress to pass a waiver to allow a recently-retired military leader to take the helm at Defense.  Such a waiver was granted to retired General Jim Mattis when he first served as Defense Department director under Trump.  It may be a challenge to get a waiver approved a second time so soon after the first.

But that procedural hurdle should not blur Austin’s credentials – his vast experience, his knowledge of the inner-workings of Defense Department, the value of his long-standing service to the country, and the fact that he happens to be Black, which will make him the first person of his ethnicity to hold the Defense Department job if he is confirmed.

Sounds like I know Austin.  I don’t.  So, to support him, I rely on the judgment of one of my friends, retired Colonel Ricky Love who served along side Austin in the Middle East and knows the retired general to be, as they say in military jargon, “squared away.”

On a different point, given my health care lobbying background, I also have paid attention to the nomination of Xavier Becerra, current attorney general in California and a former Member of Congress, to direct the Department of Health and Human Services.

He is a staunch defender of the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called ObamaCare, having opposed various Trump Administration efforts to tear down the law.  That, frankly, is a solid credential, though it will be the exact reason why some Senate Republicans will oppose him.

His task will be lead efforts to build on the Affordable Care Act, not tear it down.

In part, Republicans who oppose Becerra will do so at the peril of irritating the Latino community, which will wholeheartedly support Becerra as one of their own.

In all of this, I wish that Biden would receive from Congress what most new presidents do, which is give him a chance to govern by forming his administration without throwing up partisan obstacles to nominees for Cabinet jobs.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

Sometimes a column in a national newspaper is so good that I decide to reprint it in my blog.

Such an occasion occurred this morning when I read a piece by Kathleen Parker that appeared in the Washington under the same headline that leads this blog.

It’s time for the brat in the White House to go.  The “brat,” of course, is Donald Trump who continues to boost himself over the country, even as he solidly bears the title of “loser.”  His refusal to accept the result of the election will continue through January 20 when Joseph Biden takes over as president. 

And Parker reports below that, not only will Trump not concede, he won’t attend the inauguration and, instead, will hold a rally in Florida that competes with the formal transfer of power.  Thus, the title “brat.”

Parker writes a twice-weekly column on politics and culture.  In 2010, she received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for “her perceptive, often witty columns on an array of political and moral issues, gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead

her to unpredictable conclusions.”   A Florida native, Parker started her column in 1987 when she was a staff writer for the Orlando Sentinel.  She joined the Washington Post Writers Group in 2006.

So, here is her column on Trump, “THE BRAT.”

**********

In the film version of Dan Brown’s “Angels and Demons,” the most memorable scene features the pope’s camerlengo, or right-hand man, hijacking a helicopter from St. Peter’s Square, along with, implausibly, a vessel containing antimatter.

The camerlengo ostensibly intends to save the Vatican from an antimatter attack plotted by various church conspirators. In fact, the plotter is the camerlengo himself. What matters today is that the camerlengo bails out just before the chopper explodes and, wearing a parachute, floats celestially to the basilica roof, where he kneels in prayer and is proclaimed a hero-savior.

I’ve ruined the movie if you haven’t seen it, but stand by: Another movie about getaways is in the making, starring President Trump, who is said to be plotting a dramatic exit from the White House — aboard Marine One in his last government-subsidized chopper ride, followed by a flight to Florida for a rally timed opposite the inauguration ceremony of President-elect Joe Biden.

What a sad little man.

Of course, Trump might have based his fantasy escape from any of several action flicks, but “Angels and Demons” offers several obvious parallels: Trump’s messianic self-regard, his acute narcissism, his need for maximum attention and cinematic diversion.

He’s a legend in his own mind, and a reality-TV celebrity to boot. Nothing so ordinary as acquiescence or participation in the inauguration would suit his supreme ridiculousness. Not only has Trump refused to concede to Biden, but he has also declined to invite him to the White House, as is customary, much less signal he’ll attend the inauguration.

As we’ve long known, he’s a brat. A big, bawling baby who wants his paci. It’s little wonder that Trump was so attracted to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the man-boy whose people’s coerced loyalty Trump envied. If only Trump could have commanded such devotion from His People, he said in so many words.

They say the very rich are different from you and me, and this is certainly true when it comes to the rules. Born to wealth and privilege, little-boy Trump has never had to play by the regular rules of conduct: personal, business or otherwise. His talent for making deals at the expense of lesser mortals — combined with his strategic use of bankruptcy as a money-making instrument — has basically allowed him to proclaim victory on the backs of the screwed.

Today, those backs belong to the American voters who decided he should no longer win. The guy who can’t stop talking about winning has lost and simply can’t, or refuses to, believe it. This is the man who said dead and wounded troops were losers — and that the late Sen. John McCain was a hero only because he was captured. He of the silver spoon and heel spurs said he preferred heroes who weren’t captured.

I can think of few who so richly deserved losing as Donald J. Trump — for his lack of character alone. If he managed some things well during his four years in the White House, he should get credit, possibly for removing barriers to the speedy development of the coronavirus vaccine. But he likely won’t be remembered for what little good he did. His poor sportsmanship upon losing fair and square has overwhelmed any public sympathy or the fare-thee-well extended to those who accept defeat gracefully.

Trump doesn’t just make himself look bad; he makes the country look bad. For this, he should be shuttled out of town riding a jackass backward, wearing a clown suit. He might take a few Republicans with him.

Although Trump’s bogus, conspiratorial claims — from faulty Dominion voting systems to widespread voter fraud — have been repeatedly debunked, only 27 House and Senate Republicans acknowledge that Biden won, according to exhaustive reporting by The Post.

By attaching themselves to Trump’s lies and fallacies, these Republicans in denial are captives themselves, prisoners of the president’s madness and nothing like heroes. The ultimate irony is that Trump despises people like them. He may demand submission, but he is contemptuous of their weakness. He knows he’s selling snake oil, but he also knows that people need to believe in snake oil.

Finally, the barker has run out of magic potion and soon will parachute into a Florida rally, where he’ll shout to the heavens not a benediction but the same deranged rant: “I won. I won. I won.” Pray there is no sequel.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 not a brilliant thought, but for the last year as all of us have endured the unprecedented pandemic, the clear-cut reality for me is this:  Vaccines that work are the key to our future.

Pharmaceutical companies, aided by federal government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, have moved far more quickly than ever before to bring vaccines to market. 

Was there a profit motive?  Frankly, I hope so because, if there was, it is an example of what the private sector can do to solve major puboic policy problems in this country, if not around the world.  Not alone.  With government help – but that just, help.

To answer questions about the availability of vaccines in Oregon, I turned to a client I used to represent when I worked as a lobbyist – Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), which remains to this day a shining example of solid journalism and public affairs reporting.  It was a privilege to represent OPB for 10 years or so.

This summary illustrates that credential.

Oregon officials anticipate seeing the first shipments of the COVID-19 vaccine arrive in just a couple of weeks. The deliveries are expected to be enough to provide the first of a two-dose vaccination for just over 100,000 people.

The speed at which vaccines for COVID-19 have been developed and soon distributed has been unprecedented.

How many vaccine doses are we getting and when?

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) says it expects to get 35,100 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine around December 15 and then another 40,950 from Pfizer and 71,900 doses from drug-developer Moderna around December 22.

Both vaccines require two doses to achieve the 95 per cent effectiveness rate the developers are touting, and the doses have to be spaced out by three to four weeks, depending on the vaccine. This means that those early shipments of about 147,000 doses will serve as the first dose, and then additional shipments of an estimated 120,000 more at the end of the month will provide the second dose for those early recipients.

These first doses are enough to provide vaccine to Oregon’s health care workers — nurses, doctors and other support staff — who are in direct or indirect contact with COVID-19 patients

The vaccines are coming from the federal government, which says it will distribute them to states based on the adult population. Oregon has roughly 1.3 per cent of adults in the U.S. and consequently should get 1.3 per cent of the available vaccine.

Who gets the vaccine?

Understanding that there won’t be enough vaccine available for everyone for many months, Oregon is developing a phased hierarchy to determine who gets vaccinated first. The state is taking its cues from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The groups are broken into three phases of vaccine availability. The specifics of who gets vaccinated and when are being finalized and will govern how these early vaccines are distributed. The priorities for the first shipments are:

· Front-line health care workers and support staff

· Emergency medical service providers

· Residents and workers in long term and communal care settings

Does the plan account for health disparities for people of color when prioritizing distribution?

State officials say they are placing a high priority on equity and addressing traditional health disparities when deciding where to prioritize vaccines, but the details of how that will look have not been figured out.

In Oregon, the number of cases per thousand for Black, Indigenous and people of color is far higher than for the white population. Pacific Islanders have five times as many cases per thousand, Hispanic people have four times as many and Native Americans and African Americans have around three times the cases. Nationally these groups are nearly three times more likely to die of COVID-19 than are their white counterparts.

Does Oregon have a plan for the physical distribution COVID-19 vaccine?

Yes. The state currently is working on the logistics of how to get the vaccine to where it’s needed in the state. The first shipments will be sent to hospitals, which will administer the vaccine to frontline medical and support staff.

Oregon is also taking advantage of a federal program that is contracting with pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS. The companies will receive vaccine doses from the state and then provide on-site vaccine clinics at long term care facilities across the state.

For populations of people that are more scattered and difficult to reach — such as people experiencing homelessness, migrant agriculture communities, and dispersed rural communities — the state is planning to contract with local Emergency Service providers to deliver vaccines in the field.

Is the state ready to store ultra-cold vaccines?

Not yet.

“That, I will tell you, is the biggest headache at OHA in trying to plan this rollout of these vaccines,” according to an OHA official.

“It requires us to set up a cold chain, the ability to keep this vaccine protected and safe at a minus 70 C from the manufacturer, out to the place where it’s going to be provided,”

The University of Oregon is working with the state to get 15 smaller, more portable ultra-low temperature freezer units to send to remote areas that don’t have sufficient storage.

Only the Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at ultra-low temperatures. The Moderna vaccine and others in the development pipeline have much higher temperature storage requirements

What are the benefits of having different kinds of vaccines?

When the pandemic broke out, dozens of companies and institutions turned their focus to creating a vaccine for COVID-19. It was unknown if any of the vaccines being developed would work, and the more shots on goal there were, the better the chance we’d have of finding success.

Now, nearly a year later, there are several vaccines that are showing great promise. They’ve gone through or are close to completing sufficient testing to apply for Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. Two companies have applied and another small group is expected to apply within the next few months.

But even now, with so much early vaccine-development success, there’s still a great advantage in having several vaccines available. One is related to manufacturing:  If several companies are making vaccines, the chance they’ll be able to make enough doses to inoculate a global population increases.

When is federal emergency use authorization (EAU) expected to come through?

Both Pfizer and Moderna have applied for EAU for their vaccines. The FDA is expected to hold off on its decision until the scientific and human vaccine trial data is analyzed by the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The committee will meet on December 10 to evaluate the Pfizer vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine will be considered on December 17.

AstraZeneca is expected to apply for a EUA soon. The company is already seeking similar approval in the United Kingdom.’

Are the vaccines safe?

The FDA requires all vaccines to be extensively tested in three phases of human trials before approving them for wider use. Each trial seeks to answer different questions, with the first two focusing heavily on safety — specifically short-term side effects. During phase three testing, which can last several years, researchers are looking for longer-term safety concerns.

Because of the dire need for a COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA is considering emergency approval before the Phase 3 trials are completed. Officials won’t yet have full information about long-term effects of the vaccine, but the United States is experiencing a record number of COVID-19 deaths. The federal process is designed to determine if the vaccines are safe and effective enough that the immediate benefits of slowing an out-of-control pandemic outweigh the unknowns.

In addition to the federal process underway, Oregon has joined Washington, Nevada and California to conduct an independent safety review of the vaccines. Two physicians from Oregon are part of that working group, which will examine the data from the vaccine trials before recommending their use.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 Oregon state government budget is, if nothing else, a complicated document.  I would call it opaque, not just complicated.

While some political figures laud the budget-making process as open and fair, my experience over more than 40 years is that the process is mostly unintelligible, even to a trained eye.  I contend this, not as a slight to those involved in the process – they work hard – but more as a comment on the process itself.

This became timely last week when, on December 1, Governor Kate Brown released her “Recommended Budget for the 2021-23 Biennium.”

She performed this statutory ritual on time – and she deserves credit for that because, in the past, some governors have not met the deadline.

But she and her predecessor governors could have done better.  And, so, in this blog, I’ll expand on the reforms I consider to be important as part of making the budgeting exercise more accurate and transparent. 

That’s important for all of us because, as taxpayers, the biennial blueprint is “our” budget for state government, not someone else’s.  We pay for it with our taxes.

Too often, what happens in backrooms controls the outcome in public. 

Are my ideas magic answers?  No.  The only real solution is for legislators to adopt, personally and conceptually, a more genuine process, one that does not just mimic backroom deals, as well as one that expects government programs to achieve results, not just exist from year to year.

Here, then, is summary of some reforms worth considering.

+  Brown did a good thing by producing a “current services level budget” for the new biennium.  In other words, what would it cost to maintain state government for another two years?  The budget document should not include proposals for new taxes.  To Brown’s credit, it appears at first blush that it did not.

+  The problem, however, is that a “current services level” budget, for all its worth, does not take a hard look at all government programs to verify whether they are working or not.  One of my friends, a businessman, says legislators should take a “return on investment” look at government. 

Perhaps, but, at least, if tate programs are not working, or, more specifically, not producing the results managers say will be produce, then either of two actions should occur – scrap the programs or revise them on a “results-required basis.”

Too much to ask, you say.

No.

Taxpayers deserve this kind of hard look.

+  Some good-budget advocates support what they call a “zero-based budget” approach.  Start from zero and build from there.  Makes sense, but a fallback position would be to require governors to announce recommendations for scrapping or cutting back programs that are not producing results.  Impose the new requirement in the same law that requires the basic “recommended budget.”

Doing this effectively also would require something that is not now in place – requiring state programs to project what they propose to achieve in the next two years, then holding them to those pledges. 

Call it “outcome-based budgeting.”

If the programs don’t make the targets, scrap them.

If governors performed this function, they would be doing a solid public service…yes, tough politically, but worth doing.

As an example, when I represented Youth Villages, Inc., the executive director there was incensed that state foster care organizations were not required to verify the outcomes they intended to achieve for foster care children as they competed for state contracts to care for those children.

So she authorized me to introduce a bill for Youth Villages that would solve the problem.  It would require foster care contract applicants to sign up for results before they got a contract and, then, if results were not achieved, they would lose the contract.

For Youth Villages, the point was that foster care programs exist for the benefit of the children involved.  If the children are not treated effectively, scrap the contract.

Sounds good.  And the bill passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor.  The problem?  State managers failed to implement the bill, though it was law, and they were not held to account for that failure.

One of my friends gave me an article that included this good quote:

“A 21st-century operating system (I add, for state government in Oregon) should identify the results it most wants to achieve and the strategies most likely to get there, and then rigorously establish priorities and allocate resources to achieve them.  It should co-produce the results with citizens, business, non-profits and other governments.  It needs to recruit, nurture, empower and reward entrepreneurial leaders and staff, many of whom move readily among all three sectors.  And it must relentlessly improve and innovate, continuously creating higher-value methods and activities while shedding those that deliver less value.”

Another article from the Public Affairs Strategy Group in 2009 said this:

“Bigger or smaller government is not a bad question, just not the one that most needs an answer today.  The right question:  What kind of government do we want?  It doesn’t make sense to debate bigger or smaller until we replace an obsolete way of ‘doing government’ that pretty much guarantees that government will not be as focused, effective, innovative or efficient as it should be.”

Tough to move state government here in a new, better direction when it comes to budgeting?  Yes.  But doing so is worth the time, effort and energy it involves despite entrenched obstacles.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 headline could apply to a former partner of mine in the public relations and lobbying firm where I worked for 25 years.  Here is how he would answer:  It is too late for Republicans to stand up for the nation because they have done so in the last four years.

But he might go even farther, making a generalization that ALL Republicans – yes, ALL – are complicit with Donald Trump because they let him get away with his insanity over the last four years, amplified by his failure to accept the decision of voters that he lost the election.

I do not make the kind of generalization my partner does.

I say “some” Republicans have saluted Trump when they should have put the country first, even if that came with Trump’s derision. 

For me, if I was in elective office, getting Trump’s derision would have been a reward worth treasuring.

One of my favorite columnists these days, Michael Gerson, who writes for the Washington Post, dealt with this in a column this morning. 

Here are excerpts:

“There are three stages of Republican political pusillanimity.

“The first is feral cowardice — captured in the wild-eyed, hunted expression of Republicans senators asked to comment on the president’s latest insane or destructive tweet.  This is pure ‘fight or flight,’ minus the fight part.

“The second is calculating cowardice — in which an elected Republican hopes he or she (but mainly he) can refuse comment in the several days after a presidential outrage.  This reflects the undignified but understandable desire to blend into the scenery and avoid the attention of primary predators.

“The third is complicit cowardice.  This is silence in the face of presidential attacks on the constitutional order — a silence that rings out across the prairies and down the hollows as approval and permission.”

Gerson goes on to say that, by claiming the plot against his rightful rule was successfully coordinated across several states, Trump is not merely claiming instances of election fraud.  “He is alleging that the American system of democratic government has failed, which implies a right to revolution.  By demanding specific, unlawful acts to overturn results in a fair election, he is urging authoritarian solutions to his political problems.”

Further, Gerson says, “the coup has already occurred in the president’s mind.”

Can there be any doubt this most narcissistic of all presidents would keep power by overturning the election’s legitimate result?  Can there be any question he would snuff out the democratic voice of the nation if he could?

 More from Gerson.

“This is the interpretive key to Trump:  He is instinctually un-American.  He has no respect for the country’s institutions or values. He is ignorant of the nation’s story, dismissive of its conventions and unmoved by its romance.  He sees politics the way a Machiavellian would in any country — as the pursuit of power, not the stewardship of certain truths.

“Loyalty to Trump now leads well beyond democratic boundaries. Loyalty to the country and its government — being shown primarily by Republican state officials — brings down presidential wrath and abuse by MAGA forces.  With even the morally malleable Attorney General William P. Barr now rejecting ridiculous, dangerous libels against the electoral system, the continuing silence from many elected Republicans is — how to say this politely? — sickening.  Craven.  Dishonorable.”

Gerson says the fact is that U.S. democracy must re-create itself in every generation by reaffirming the ideals that created it.  “Our institutions are not machines that automatically produce the common good.  They depend for their survival and success on democratic values — on the constraint of power, not only by law, but by convention and conscience.

“By expecting such integrity in elected Republicans, we are not asking all that much. The fear of being targeted in a presidential tweet and gaining a primary opponent is real enough.  But it is hardly the risk of a young soldier on D-Day, or a protester at a segregated lunch counter. Honoring the oath of office is the minimal commitment of responsible representation.”

Many Republicans have done this – been committed to responsible representation.  It is past time for all others to do the same. 

And this conclusion from Gerson:  “My plea to elected Republicans:  Remember who you are.  Remember the oath that binds you. Remember the idealism and love of country that brought you to service.   In a world of chance and change, the great things are eternal:  Courage, judgment, honesty, honor, moral integrity and a sense of the sacred.  It is never too late to do the right thing.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 pledged earlier that I would avoid writing any longer about one Donald Trump.

Well, either I changed my mind or I lied.  And, if the latter, then I am following hard on the heels of Trump, the biggest liar ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Today, I mention one of my favorite subjects, “words matter” – and note how words will change in American governance as the Biden Administration takes over on January 2021.  In the course of what I write, there is no option other than to draw a contrast with Trump.

Now, with Biden, we no longer will have to tolerate Trump’s lack of vocabulary, his inherent tendency to misspell words, or his devotion to finding scapegoats for any perceived slight.  We got a new dose of his inability to use good words when he went on a 46-minute rant a day ago, then translated the rant into a tweet.

No more, I say.

Shortly after the New Year dawns, we’ll have a president who knows how to use words.  So will his staff, including a press secretary and a communications director.  Both are professionals.  Biden has appointed credentialed persons to those and many other jobs in his new administration.

The “words matter” proposition was driven home for me this week by an essay written by Ross M. Wallenstein, vice president of J Strategies, a communications and government relations firm with offices in New York City, Albany, and Boston.  It appeared on-line in a post sent to me by one of my former partners in CFM Advocates – a partner who, himself, was and is skilled at using words.

Share to LinkedIn

Here are the first paragraphs of what Wallenstein wrote:

“Regardless of party, all Americans should rejoice in one result of the 2020 elections:  The return of well-planned, positive, carefully crafted presidential messaging and traditional media operations.

“On Monday, November. 9, just 48 hours after winning the election, President-Elect Joe Biden released a simple, yet effective statement, which extolled the announcement from Pfizer that its COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be 90 per cent effective.

“Biden’s 232 words struck the right tone of excitement, tempered optimism and pragmatic realism.  It reminded Americans that the fight against the virus is far from over and the best protection against it remains the careful pursuit of science.  It ended with the following:

“America is still losing over 1,000 people a day from COVID-19, and that number is rising — and will continue to get worse unless we make progress on masking and other immediate actions. That is the reality for now, and for the next few months. Today’s announcement promises the chance to change that next year, but the tasks before us now remain the same.”

At the same time, Wallenstein said Trump performed his usual off-based ritual, which was that, in two tweets totaling 51 words, he fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.  Apparently, Esper had not been sufficiently local to Trump.

Wallenstein writes that the tone of the dueling statements could not have been more striking.

“I have been a student of history and a lover of words for as long as I can remember,” he says.  “’The better angels of our nature…,’ ‘… nothing to fear but fear itself…’ and ‘… ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country…’ are not empty rhetoric uttered by the temporary holders of a constitutional office.  Rather, they are examples of the best our country has had to offer at the times when we needed them the most.”

Can you imagine Trump uttering any of those words?  I cannot.

Using right and good words won’t solve every daunting public policy problem a president will face.  But good words, well used, can influence public opinion.

More from Wallenstein:

“Past president have been mindful of this fact for decades.  Beginning with Herbert Hoover, who established the press secretary position, the public relations of a White House have been full-time endeavors. His successor, Franklin Roosevelt, ever mindful of the power of his own words, transformed the media operations by hosting press conferences in the Oval Office and conducting his famous fireside chats.

“Since 2016, the American people have seen the direct, forceful version of political messaging.  Instead of long press conferences or daily briefings, Trump used his personal Twitter account (often re-tweeted by the official White House account instead of publishing own original content) to communicate directly with his followers and the media, which amplifies his messages free of charge.

“There is an undeniable cost to that delivery method.

“While Americans have been treated for the first time to the unfiltered thoughts of the president, we have also been spared the complexity of issues and the nuance of their ramifications.  Press statements or primetime Oval Office speeches designed to calm stock markets or quell a riled citizenry—of our country and the world—have been traded for the inflammatory tweets.”

With Biden, whether I agree with him or not, I will welcome thought and effort that once again will go into White House communications.  Instead of tweets, we will see 1,000-word statements or detailed press releases explaining a subject in full, while offering information, context and clarity to the American people – all with good words.

And, that’s a good thing.