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, 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.

Here is the question:

Does character trump policy?

Or, does policy trump character?

Forgive the play on words here with the use of the word “trump,” but the current president is almost a classic example of the tension between someone’s character and what they do in a political position – or at least what they say they do.

One of my friends put the question this way:  If a president had solid character, but implements dumb policy, would you still vote for solid character?

Good question.

The easy answer is that I want a president with solid character who handles the duties of the presidential office with aplomb, zeal and honesty, even if I might disagree from time to time with the policy.  If the president supports and implements policies with which I disagree, so be it, because no one president will ever do what exactly I want – nor should that president.

Put differently, I want both character and sound policy.

And, I think, as Americans, we deserve both.

But, at least with solid character, I would know that a president was telling the truth about policies, not making things up as he or she went along.

We are reaching a point in our national existence when we are dominated by rage and resentment, at least in politics, if not in society in at large.  For one thing, the current president, emboldened by the U.S. Senate decision not to convict him in the impeachment process, is retaliating against those who oppose him.

For another, those on the left behave in the same way, eschewing respect and decency for, again, rage and resentment.

I say it’s time to return to politics that meant something – the ability to disagree agreeably.  The same should be true of society in general.

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, 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.

Truth be told, I am a baseball fan only at certain times of the year, especially as the World Series draws closer.

So, I do not have much credibility to comment on the scandal engulfing the Houston Astros who have admitted to a systematic approach to cheat to win games, including the World Series.

But I did appreciate reading a quote from one of the best sports writers going these days, Rick Reilly.  Here is what he wrote for The Atlantic:

“Like a pilot in a blizzard, America is flying upside down right now. We have a president who lies with every other breath and then demonizes anyone who tells the truth.  We have senators who swear on the Bible and then run a trial without a single witness.  And now we have a national pastime that knows the Astros robbed Fort Knox and let them keep the gold anyway.”

Not much more needs to be said about a Reilly quote that does a great job of comparing the state of national politics today to the state of baseball today.  Both have been indelibly marked by cheating.

So, now we’re supposed to root again for the Astros as the baseball season begins and when they might be cheating again.  And, were supposed to vote in the next presidential election, which already has been rigged in favor of the incumbent and will be rigged again before next November.

Right!

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, 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.

This is one of three departments I run – the others being the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering and the Department of Pet Peeves.

The Department of Just Saying exists, mostly, to house issues that don’t fit in the other two.

ISSUE  #1:  News is emerging this week that President Donald Trump – yes, he is still president, though he often acts more like a dictator – has assigned his director of White House personnel to find and fire federal agency employees who are not sufficiently loyal to Trump.

A story in the Washington Post appeared under this headline:

Trump embarks on expansive search for disloyalty as administration-wide purge escalates

The action comes, of course, after Trump feels emboldened by not being convicted in the impeachment process, so is out to get his detractors, an effort which has been labeled a “purge.”

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING That, having worked for a governor in Oregon, I understand the instinct to name high-level state government who are loyal.  But the word “loyalty” should be defined.

Governor Vic Atiyeh, for whom I worked, felt loyalty was best described as meeting two objectives:  (1) working hard and well for the Administration, and (2) feeling free to question policies when there was a clear need for such questions.

In the Departments of Human Resources, Economic Development and Executive (where I worked), I remember a number of occasions when I and others pushed back on something the governor wanted to do.  He listened and, while he may not have changed his mind or his approach, the critical fact was this – he listened and did not mount a purge to find only yes-men or yes-women.

I wish Trump had the same, smart, confident ability.

ISSUE #2:   Here is what Trump said about case involving a Trump Roger Stone who was convicted of lying to authorities.

“They say he lied. But other people lied too,” Trump said, before naming former FBI officials. “You don’t know who these people are, just trust me, they all lied,” he said, to laughter from the audience.

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING THAT, when it comes to lying, Trump knows what he is talking about.

The Washington Post Fact Checker column has counted more than 15,000 lies Trump has told since he took office.

ISSUE #3:  Rahm Emanuel, former mayor of Chicago, among other government jobs, recently opined about problems with all those running for federal office.

“The central reason (for the problems), he said, “underpins a reality framing the race.  State and local government today get things done, while Washington so frequently falls short.”

Emanuel cited these other examples:

• Recall that Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer won office on the strength of a simple slogan: ‘Just fix the damn roads.’
• An ad by Joe Biden inadvertently highlighted Pete Buttigieg’s core appeal—his record of driving change at the local level can be applied to the nation as a whole.
• Mike Bloomberg comes with an impressive “get it done” record as mayor. If he can brandish those accomplishments on the campaign trail (and actually prepare for debates – after falling on his face in the first one), he could be a contender. The jury is still out on that question.
• Senator Bernie Sanders is an anomaly. As someone who’s running for the Democrat nomination without even being a Democrat, he presents himself as an outsider.  But as Biden has pointed out, Sanders has been making the same argument about profit-seeking corporations and greedy executives for decades.  It’s pretty hard to maintain a legitimate claim on the “change agent” persona when your most memorable line in the campaign is “I wrote the damn bill!”

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING THAT, the ability for government to work well – at the local, regional, state or federal levels – ought to be a calling card for those running.

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, 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.

First, this admission.

I am down here in La Quinta, California, for part of the winter, with nothing much else to do than play golf or think about golf – except when I allow myself to be diverted into politics.

The preamble to this blog makes the point, I guess, about two of my interests – golf and politics.  This time, I’ll stay away from politics.

So, it was that today, between golf rounds on the course, I came up with these thoughts about golf:

SLOW PLAY:  This is one of the main problems with professional golf and the problem is that, as young players see the pros, they mimic the slow pace.  The worst is J.B. Holmes who, incredibly, plumb-bobs three-foot putts.  When he plays, I turn off the TV.  Mercifully, he is not in the field this week.

Based on what happened last year in a European Tour event, I think there is a solution to the slow play problem.  It is to put a shot clock on a golf cart and have that cart follow along with each group of players.  When a player gets to his or her golf ball, turn the clock on.  Give the player 40 seconds to hit his or her shot.

If they exceed the time, give them, first, a warning.  Then, if there is a second violation, dole out a one-stroke penalty – and proceed from there, with a disqualification with, say, three bad times.

It wouldn’t take long for slow play to end in response to the monitoring, warning and penalties.

COLLEGE GOLF IN THE DESERT:  I had the good fortune to attend the Prestige College Golf Tournament at the PGA West Greg Norman golf course this week.

There were 16 teams there from around the country in an event that, after three 18-hole rounds, was won by one of the best teams in the country, the University of Texas.  [Others in the field were Arkansas, Stanford, LSU, University of California/Davis, UCLA, Wyoming, Northwestern, Oklahoma State and Pepperdine.}

Oregon State University was there, too, and played well as a team for the first two days, then fell back a bit on the last day.

I watched the Beavers’ best player, Spencer Tibbets, whom I knew as he came through Oregon Golf Association junior tournaments to succeed well enough to earn a scholarship to OSU.  One of Spencer’s claims to fame occurred last year when he qualified for the U.S. Open and, even as an amateur, missed making the cut by only one stroke.

Regarding the slow play issue, one tactic employed in the college tournament was that, as the first two players in a foursome finished a hole, they walked off to the next tee.  Then, the last two players completed the hole.  Made for a better pace of play because the two who left could tee off quickly on the next hole.

This could have struck some observers as violating golf etiquette because the normal process is for all golfers in a group to remain on the green until everyone has completed the hole.  This time, the need for quickness prevailed.

PLAYING GOLF WITH MY SON AT THE PALMS:  Speaking of good fortune, I was able to play 18 holes with my son, Eric, earlier this week at The Palms where both of us are privileged to be members.

For my part, I would rather watch him play than play myself.  I remember the first time he beat me.  He was 12 years old.  That irritated me.  But, from then on, every time I have played with him or watched him play, I am very proud of him.

As I like to say, I taught Eric all I know about golf – and then he turned five years old!

LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING BACK TO MY FAVORITE GOLF COURSE IN THE WORLD, ILLAHE HILLS:  Now, as I write this, I ‘ll be back home in Salem for the month of March.  So, when I return, one of the first things I’ll do is play Illahe Hills, my favorite course in the world.

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, 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.

The Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.  The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Just Saying.

From columnist E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:  ‘Trump as ‘the chief law enforcement officer’ is akin to putting the Houston Astros in charge of policing cheating in Major League Baseball.

“It should worry Democrats that as the dangers posed by four more years of Trump (and two more years of a supine GOP Senate) become clearer, their presidential race may be coming down to a choice between a billionaire and a democratic socialist. ’Tis the final conflict, as The Internationale, the old anthem of the left, put it.  It’s hard to imagine a confrontation more likely to shatter the party.”

Comment:  Trump must have loved last night’s Democrat debate.  What candidates did to each other only benefits Trump who, remember, has designated himself as the “chief law enforcement officer” in the land.

More from Dionne:  “Can these Democratic candidates start competing over who is best positioned to bring together the majority of Americans who disapprove of how Trump is running things?

“Can they try to prove it by reaching out now to constituencies not part of their own natural base — and by taming the furies within their own factions?

“Can they look at the smirk on Trump’s face and realize the damage they’ll do our nation if they just pretend that this primary is like every other?”

Comment:  Dionne is not my favorite Post columnist, coming, as he usually does, from so far left.  But, this time, he raises a great point:  When will Democrat candidates start competing over who is best positioned to bring together the majority of Americans who disapprove of how Trump is running things?

From former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger in the Washington Post:  “Attorney General William Barr is under assault for what his critics decry as improper interference in the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone.  But the claim that decisions by career prosecutors should in essence be unreviewable by those appointed to leadership positions in the Justice Department is not just wrong; it is also irresponsible.  Barr wasn’t intervening inappropriately.  He was doing his job.”

Comment:  To me, Terwilliger makes a great point.  The head of a government agency does not automatically have to accede to the actions of those under him or her.  He or she has the responsibility to make most of the final decisions.

To be sure, it would have better, in the most recent case involving AG Barr and the Stone sentencing recommendation, for the AG’s actions to come before the staff recommendation – so the final recommendation could occur without as much controversy.  But, still, Barr is the AG and, in this case, according to someone who knows and worked with him – Terwilliger — the “intervention” was entirely appropriate, no matter what sentence an independent hands down to Stone.

Call me guilty here.  I was a state government executive and, while I valued the recommendations of those who worked for me, I often had the responsibility to make the final decision.

From former Navy Secretary John Lehman in the Wall Street Journal on the National Security Council (NSC):  “Henry Kissinger grew the council to include one deputy, 32 policy professionals and 60 administrators. By my count, alumni of his NSC include two secretaries of state, four national security advisers, a director of national intelligence, a secretary of the Navy, and numerous high-ranking officials in the State, Defense and Treasury departments as well as the Central Intelligence Agency.

“But the NSC has only continued to expand. By the end of the Obama administration, 34 policy professionals supported by 60 administrators had exploded to three deputies, more than 400 policy professionals and 1,300 administrators.”

Comment:  Incredible!  What started out as a small group of analysts to help the president deal with often-competing government departments has become its own department, not in name, but in fact.  What this shows is what happens with government grows too fast – and when, after being voted into existence, there is no emphasis other than on growth.

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, 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.

Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib proposed a good question in his column this week.

He asked what Democrats really want as they draw closer to a decision about who will run against Donald Trump.

Do they want someone like Bernie Sanders who, Seib contends, wants to overthrow the system?

Or, do they want someone like Michael Bloomberg who, Seib says, wants to overthrow Trump?

How Democrat voters make this decision over the next weeks will tell two tales:  The first, obviously, is who will run against Trump; the second, perhaps a bit less obviously, is who will have the best chance to beat the person who sits in the Oval Office.

The fact Seib mentions only Sanders and Bloomberg could sell short other competing for the D mantler– Joe Biden, Amy Klobucher, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg.

But, regardless of the specific candidate, Seib asks a very central question. He is what he wrote:

“To say that Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg are different is one of those statements that is at once both entirely true, yet woefully insufficient.

“For all the differences that separate the Vermont senator and the former New York mayor, though, the most profound one is very simple:  They offer divergent theories of what the 2020 presidential election is all about.  Sanders believes Democrat voters are ready to overthrow the system.  Bloomberg thinks they merely want to overthrow President Trump.

“The question of which approach Democrats are buying is central to the fate of these two unconventional candidates, and to the whole scrambled Democrat presidential race.

To buttress his point, Seib cites a bit of history.

“One of the most important aspects of any presidential campaign is the theory of the race:  What is it that voters are really looking for that year?  Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because voters were ready, after an ineffective Democrat presidency, for a turn in a conservative direction.  Barack Obama won in 2008 because voters were seeking, in the midst of a deep financial slide and a depressing war in Iraq, a candidate who represented both hope and change.  Donald Trump won in 2016 because voters wanted somebody who would defy the establishment of both parties.

“This year, the Democratic primary fight turns on the question of what the party’s rank-and-file are most yearning for: a genuine revolution, or a simple change in command.

It also is instructive to see how Sanders and Bloomberg are treating Trump, either directly or indirectly.

The Sanders campaign, Seib says, “proceeds from a belief that Trump won because he captured the anger and dissatisfaction of working Americans, but now is vulnerable because he hasn’t really made working-class concerns the center of his presidency.”

More from Seib:

“Still, the fact that Sanders is running against Trump is almost secondary; the Sanders view of society’s economic injustices is the same one he would be offering regardless of who was on the Republican line.\

“It’s similar to the one he offered four years ago—and, indeed, is similar to the one he has been offering for four decades. Sanders believes that the Democrat Party is finally ready to buy in.”

By contrast, Seib says the Bloomberg candidacy exists for one reason — to defeat Trump.

“Bloomberg’s argument is that he is both tough enough to do it, and has the wherewithal to do it.  Bloomberg’s disdain for the president oozes from his every ad and every appearance, as does his belief that he, as a fellow New York big shot, and a more successful one than the president at that, has Trump’s number.

“Nowhere was that more clear than in the tweet Bloomberg fired out a few days ago, after he had been belittled by Trump.  Speaking directly to the president, Bloomberg declared:  ‘We know many of the same people in NY. Behind your back they laugh at you and call you a carnival barking clown.’”

No doubt Trump hated the reference, along the coming campaign trail, he’ll get more from Sanders, Bloomberg or whomever wins.

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, 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.

A national newspaper story a few days ago describes the tension for Democrats as they could be poised to do this:

Nominate a socialist who wants the government to control energy production and health care, who wants nationwide rent control, and who calls America a “racist society from top to bottom.”

That’s Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

So, in a potential winnable race against Donald Trump later this year, Democrats may be lurching so far left as to promote Trump’s re-election.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote about the issue:

“The Vermont revolutionary’s victory portends a long primary battle, unless Democrat voters elevate a single mainstream candidate who can challenge him.  Sanders will get his 25 to 30 per cent of the vote in primary after primary, racking up delegates on his way to the convention.

“If other candidates keep dividing the other votes, he will be hard to stop, as Trump was for Republicans in 2016.  Even if a single alternative emerges, Sanders won’t go down without a ferocious intra-party fight.”

The WSJ asks this question.

“So, how did this happen?  How did Sanders move from the socialist fringe to the brink of controlling the Democrat Party?  The senator’s dogged persistence across decades and especially the last four years is part of the explanation.

“Yet, Sanders wouldn’t be this close to the White House if not for the complicity of Democrats and the liberals who dominate the academy and media.  Rather than fighting the ideas that animate him and his millennial voters, they have indulged and promoted them.  They created the political environment in which he could prosper.”

The WSJ cites several “intellectual currents” Sanders is riding – and, to me, as an observer of federal politics in my cheap seat out West, the currents strike me as exactly on point.

• The attack on capitalism and markets. Sanders wants America to become a socialist state so there is no reward for hard work and enterprise.
• The rise of left-wing intolerance on campus. From the late 1960s on, the political left flooded into the academy and rewrote the curriculum to fit its ideological fashions. First the humanities, then the social sciences and now even the sciences have been forced to bend to identity politics.  Race, gender, class and sexual orientation became preoccupations in scholarship and tenure.
• The critique of America as irredeemably racist. Identity politics took an especially sharp turn on race with the police shootings of 2014 and 2015. Equity and honesty compel calling out racism in all areas where it exists, but it does not exist everywhere.
• Climate change as religion, not science. A generation of apocalyptic climate education has made what was a matter of temperatures and scientific modeling into a cultural identity. No dissent is tolerated, and the solutions must be radical and immediate.

These, the WSJ says, “are among the beliefs feeding the radicalism and resentment of the Sanders campaign.  Yet, rather than challenge Sanders, the other candidates have given him a pass on everything besides Medicare for All.  They have adopted his tax and redistribution arguments, if not all his policies.  They mimic his denunciations of America as racist.

“This year, even more than most years, the country needs a sensible and centrist opposition party and nominee.  Millions of Americans like the results of Trump’s policies, but not his divisive brand of politics and personal behavior.  They are looking for an alternative who doesn’t scare them.”

Count me as one of those looking.

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, 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.

The headline in this blog – not necessarily new news in this day of the prevalence of social media – is not good news for me.

You see, I am a newspaper junkie.  I like to get ink on my hands!

When I was growing up, I thought I wanted to be a newspaper reporter, perhaps with the beat of covering sports.

That never materialized as a career, though I did work for a daily newspaper in Oregon, the Daily Astorian, where I covered local governments — the city council, the county commission and the Port of Astoria, augmented by covering local, high school sports on evenings or weekends.

It was a good life in my first professional position after college.

When, from Astoria, I returned to Portland where I had grown up and later went on to Salem, I always retained my love for newspapers.

It was a few years ago that even that changed – at least a bit.

When the Oregonian and Statesman-Journal newspapers became mostly nothing more than small print versions of what was already on-line, I went with the flow.  I cancelled my subscriptions and went on-line, albeit with cleaner hands.

I also added the on-line editions of two national newspapers, which still participate in solid journalism – the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post – sometimes with the additions of the New York Times and Atlantic Magazine.

I also read the fairly new Salem Reporter, an effort led by my friend Les Zaitz to develop real news about Salem – don’t forget it’s the state’s Capital, which means there is lots of news there, despite the demise of the Salem Statesman-Journal.  Zaitz, by the way, is one of Oregon’s best journalists, having worked for the Oregonian for many years.

If I read all of these on-line (it should be said that I still get the Wall Street Journal in our mailbox at home, not just on-line), I think I get a good cross-section of solid journalism – quality writing and different takes on issues roiling this country, including its political process, a democracy under attack.

So, it was that I read a piece in PEW Research Reports, which chronicled the demise of newspapers, an unfortunate development in this country.  Here is the story’s lead paragraph:

“Newspaper chain McClatchy filed for bankruptcy this week, the latest bad headline for the struggling U.S. newspaper industry. McClatchy owns media companies in 14 states, including the Kansas City Star, Miami Herald, Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Sacramento Bee.”

A few more excerpts:

• Newspaper circulation fell in 2018 to its lowest level since 1940, the first year with available data. Total daily newspaper circulation (print and digital combined) was an estimated 28.6 million for weekday and 30.8 million for Sunday in 2018. Those numbers were down 8 and 9 per cent, respectively, from the previous year. Both figures are now below their lowest recorded levels, though weekday circulation first passed this threshold in 2013.
• Newspaper revenues declined dramatically between 2008 and 2018.
  Advertising revenue fell from $37.8 billion in 2008 to $14.3 billion in 2018, a 62 per cent decline.
• Newsroom employment at U.S. newspapers dropped by nearly half (47 per cent) between 2008 and 2018, from about 71,000 workers to 38,000. Newspapers drove a broader decline in overall U.S. newsroom employment during that span.
• Layoffs continue to pummel U.S. newspapers. Roughly a quarter (27 per cent) of papers with an average Sunday circulation of 50,000 or more experienced layoffs in 2018. The layoffs came on top of the roughly one-third (31 per cent) of papers in the same circulation range that experienced layoffs in 2017. What’s more, the number of jobs typically cut by newspapers in 2018 tended to be higher than in the year before.

My hope is that such great newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post will continue to practice solid journalism – in print, as well as on-line.  I also wish success for such local efforts as the Salem Reporter.  I intend to remain a subscriber of all.

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, 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.

On the golf course the other day – no surprise, yes, I was there – a friend asked me what lobbyists really do.

The fact is that there are a lot of misconceptions about the role of lobbyists who function much like attorneys with the phrase “everyone deserves representation.”

Good lobbyists can have their general reputations tarnished by the misdeeds of the few, some of whom carry around bags of money to buy their way into results.  Plus various disreputable figures gaining notoriety by selling access in Washington, D.C.

To be sure, as is true with any profession, there are – to use an old phrase – “rotten apples who spoil the barrel.”

Most of the lobbyists I know well – and, remember, I was one in Oregon for about 25 years when my company also ran an office in Washington, D.C. – do their best to represent clients with skill and honesty.

To my friend on the golf course, I make the following points to define lobbying:

• Lobbyists are like lawyers. They represent clients.  Their “courtroom” is the Capitol building or anywhere else they can meet with elected legislators or Executive Branch officials.
• Lobbyists have contracts with clients, which are negotiated in advance of representation.
• Lobbyists help clients understand the context of the legislative process. One client I represented for a number of years called it “understanding the guardrails of the legislative process,” something he would not have understood without a lobbyist — me.
• Lobbyists help clients put their best feet forward in the process of making new laws. Sometimes that means working to pass a bill that would be acceptable to a client.  Sometimes that means working to kill a bill that would harm a client’s interests.  But good lobbyists also work to help a client find middle ground compromise, which, after all, is the definition of politics.
• Lobbyists help clients deal with Executive Branch agencies, for it often is agencies, who, at the behest of the governor, introduce various pieces of legislation. And, it is agencies that engage in administrative rule-making processes to implement bills that have passed.  So, a lobbyist’s task relates both to the Legislative and Executive Branches.
• Lobbyists help clients by advising them about political contributions, which is part of the cost of doing business in the making public policy. As we helped our clients deal with this issue, we kept what I call “relationship records,” as opposed to what some others do, which is to keep “voting records.”  Our view was that we wanted to advocate contributions to candidates who were willing to listen to our perspectives, then make their own decisions.

Without adding more to the list, let me just add that there can be a perception that the only actions lobbyists take is to kill or pass bills.  As I noted above, that is not always the case.

Here is an example of what a federal lobbyist in the firm I helped to found in 1990 did for the City of Pendleton just the other day.  The lobbyist is Kirby Garrett and here is what he wrote to summarize what happened:

“Good win for Pendleton today.  It has been working to attain the laundry list of state and federal approvals needed so sediment can be removed from McKay Creek (which flooded last spring), and restore flow capacity to avoid another flood this coming spring.  Pendleton needed to start work today to remove the 800 dump trucks’ worth of sediment by the end of the six-week in-water work period.

But, the Army Corps of Engineers informed the city yesterday the approval would be delayed until next week. The City Manager relayed this to me yesterday and asked for our help.

“I worked with Congressman Greg Walden’s office to explain the issue and solicit its help to apply pressure on the Corps to meet the original timeframe that had given the City.  After a lot of back and forth all throughout yesterday among me, the City, Walden’s office, and the Corps, Pendleton received the permit this afternoon and will start work today.  This is a welcome piece of good news for the community amidst all the other local flooding occurring now (from the Umatilla River – separate from McKay Creek).”

So, for lobbyists and their clients, the work can involve big and little stuff.  It’s all important.

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, 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.

Hard to believe all of the following is happening in the arena – state government – where I made my living for almost 40 years, 15 as a government executive and 25 years as a lobbyist.

But, here is a summary of what I rate as “bad news.”

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY:  The department has so mismanaged its two-year budget that it is heading to the Legislature to get relief, which means an infusion of cash.

So, if approved, this means that mismanagement will be rewarded.

Back in the day when I was in state government, this would never have happened.  First, the managers of a state agency would have been expected to manage their budget, except for real emergencies such as, in this case, an unexpectedly brisk fire season.

Second, a state agency would never be allowed to head to the Legislature – or, between legislative sessions, to the Emergency Board – for a bailout.  The “never be allowed” point refers to the fact that the governor would have to approve all forays to the Legislature, not this kind of Forestry Department venture.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES:  The Department has so mismanaged one of his major assignments – running the foster care system – that the governor has found it necessary to create several task forces to oversee the department’s functioning.

For me, the best approach would be to expect Department managers to do their jobs to protect foster kids and, if they cannot, find new ones who could perform.

Foster care mismanagement has gone on for several years now – and it’s unconscionable.

STATE TRAVEL AGENCY:  Speaking of questionable management decisions, a recent Secretary of State audit showed that pay rates for the director and other managers of Oregon’s travel bureau are among the highest of any state agency, even though Travel Oregon’s top brass oversee a much smaller staff and budget.

Since 2012, the audit showed, managers’ salaries ballooned by 76 per cent.  As of June, the state paid the CEO $381,624, including a car and cellphone allowance, up 129 per cent from approximately $167,000 a decade ago. Further, the Oregon Tourism Commission has since granted a 3 per cent raise.

I am all for state government managers getting paid for their hard work, assuming it’s hard, but these salaries appear way out of line.

THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF:  The short legislative session – something that occurs in the even-numbered year after voters approved it several years ago – was supposed to deal with emergencies, such as adjustments to the two-year state government budget halfway through it.

With credit to my friend and blogger, Dick Hughes, here is a summary of beyond-the-pale actions in Salem:

• Late Thursday afternoon, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee passed the climate change bill, Senate Bill 1530 with major changes — a 177-page amendment posted Wednesday evening, only a day before the vote.
• The “safe storage” firearms bill, House Bill 4005, drew passionate testimony on both sides, although few people talked about how the bill actually would work. Advocates had introduced a major amendment about two-and-a-half hours before the hearing, but they struggled with explaining how the details would work in real life.
• House Judiciary Committee Chair Tawna Sanchez, D-Portland, added an informational meeting on HB 4005 this week so members could ask questions of a legislative lawyer. The discussion lasted only 25 minutes before Sanchez moved on to other bills.
• Also on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee shipped Senate Bill 1538 to the Senate Rules Committee — on a party-line vote, without ever holding a public hearing on the measure. The bill probably is dead, although nothing is certain until the Legislature adjourns.  SB 1538 would allow governments to prohibit anyone, including holders of concealed handgun licenses, from carrying firearms in such public buildings as schools or the State Capitol.
• Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, was gracious to the dozens of people who were allowed one-and-a-half minutes each to testify Saturday on SB 1530 (the climate change bill) at the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. More than 130 people asked to testify during the three-hour hearing.   Can you imagine driving to the Capitol from throughout Oregon for the chance to talk for 90 seconds, if at all?
• In another example, a Senate committee held hearing last week on a bill to allow church parsonages on rural land. It occurred on the same morning as the Timber Unity rally, which drew thousands of people — and loud, horn-blaring trucks — to the Capitol to protest the climate change bill.  Public testimony on SB 1555 — the only item on the agenda — was limited to three minutes per person.

These examples remind me of a sad chapter in my past.  When I was dealing with health care issues as a lobbyist for Providence Health & Services, the chair of the House Health Care Committee had managed to hire a staff analyst who would do only his bidding, with, apparently, no responsibility to honor normal legislative processes.

The worst case came when a huge amendment – more than 200 pages – was printed only a few minutes before the hearing where it was to be voted upon.  There were not even enough copies for those who would be interested.  Lobbyists didn’t know anything about it.  Neither did their clients.  And, worse, neither did the public.

To me, these are examples where legislators, faced with tight time frames, are working too fast and, thus, limiting public comment on important, not to mention controversial, issues.

If it were up to me, I’d do either of two things:  Scrap the short sessions as an experiment that didn’t work, or return to the original limits on what can be done in only 35 days in Salem.