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.

I draw this blog headline from a story in The Atlantic that pilloried California Representative Devin Nunes.

He deserves it.

As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, he has conducted himself with disdain for everybody on the other side of the political aisle – or, for that matter, with those who testified =in the impeachment inquiry.

To say he is a defender if President Donald Trump is to utter an understatement.

I have been stunned about how badly he performed under the glare of publicity.

For instance, rather than mention the absolute seriousness of the process and then disagree with it as he continued to support Trump – a plausible position, given his Republican credentials –Nunes diverged off into disparaging everyone.

TV ratings he said would be low. The conduct of the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, was offensive, Nunes said even as he Nunes, by protocol, sat directly next to Schiff.

Beyond that, Nunes has continued to propound untruths about how virtuous Trump is, how Ukraine sought to upend the Trump presidency (not true; by any reputable account, it was Russia, not Ukraine, that sought to compromise the 2016 election), and how various administrative officials came across as buffoons.

No. It is Nunes who is the buffoon.

According to The Atlantic, Nunes operates with no basis in fact or history. The on-line magazine goes on to characterize his approach in words with huge implications.

“He is not interested in talking with anyone who is interested in checking claims, or verifying statements. He is talking only with people locked into a closed and sealed knowledge system.

“This closed knowledge system entraps millions of Americans in a universe of untruth, in which Trump is a victim and the allegations against him are ‘fake news.’ The prisoners and victims of this system live in a dream-world of lies. Yet, it would not quite be accurate to describe them as uninformed. They are disinformed, and on a huge scale. The false-knowledge system supported by Nunes is closed and sealed, but also vast and intricate.”

Trump’s conduct to seek Ukraine’s help in his 2020 campaign, The Atlantic says, “is simple and straightforward. It can all be summarized in a few sentences of plain English: Trump wanted dirty help for his 2020 re-election campaign. He sent messages demanding that dirty help to the Ukrainians directly on the phone and via his henchmen. He stalled military aid to extort the help. The Ukrainians nearly surrendered, until the whistle-blower report reached Congress on September 9 and knocked loose the aid on September 11.”

Nunes doesn’t indicate that he cares. He parrots phrases he watches or hears on Fox News or on pro-Trump websites – such callout phrases as “Burisma.” “Hunter Biden.” “Where’s the whistle-blower?” “Vindman’s conflict of interests.” “Star chamber.” “#coup has started.”

More from The Atlantic:

“The accusations against Trump are direct and intelligible to any open mind. The defense of Trump resembles the Star Wars saga: A universe of storytelling, in multiple parts, much of it comprehensible only if you venture beyond the visual franchise to a huge appendix of fan fiction and Wikipedia pages.

“At Fox News, on talk radio, and on the web, American conservatives have built a communications system that effectively consolidates in-group identity. Much of the time, the talkers and listeners do not themselves understand what they are saying. They use key words and phrases as gang signs: Badges of identity that are recognized without necessarily being understood. This system of communication tightly bonds in-group members. That bond, in turn, exerts tremendous power over American politics.”

So, we have the far right (if “right” describes where Trump and acolytes reside) exerting “tremendous power over American politics.” Nunes is a key figure in this effort to subvert and control.

I wish him nothing but failure, hoping against hope that his diatribes will fall on at least a few deaf ears.

Further, late news over the last few days is that Nunes himself, with his staff, conducted on-site “investigations” in Ukraine designed to promote Trump conspiracy theories. For that, though he denies the effort, it appears he may be subject to a House Ethics Committee investigation if only because, for one thing, he used taxpayer money to go on his pro-Trump expedition.

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.

If you think of well-managed companies in America, solid writing may not leap quickly to mind.

But, for Amazon, writing is a hallmark of a solid operation.

For me, without setting out to compare myself to Amazon, I share the commitment to writing as a skill that can produce better thinking – and it was a commitment I employed through nearly 40 years of work in the public and private sectors.

All of this came to mind as I read a story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) listing the “best managed companies” in America, a list topped by Amazon.

Here’s what the story said:

“This year, Amazon.com, Inc. unseated Apple Inc. to earn the No. 1 spot in the Management Top 250, an annual ranking that uses the principles of the late management guru Peter Drucker to identify the most effectively managed companies.

“A team of researchers at Claremont Graduate University’s Drucker Institute compiles the list using dozens of data points to evaluate companies on five performance dimensions: Customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility, and financial strength.

“Those principles reflect the teachings of Drucker, long considered the father of modern management, who emphasized a comprehensive approach to leadership. He argued that highly functional organizations should benefit not only investors, but also society — a viewpoint that has gone in and out of vogue.”

And, here is a summary of the writing credential employed by Amazon:

“Longtime Amazon employees credit an intense focus on writing as part of the creative process for helping the organization sharpen its ideas and come up with new products and services.

“Amazon culture, set from the top down by founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos, has long shunned lengthy slide presentations. Instead, employees present a memo that can be no longer than six pages and that is silently read at the start of a meeting by everyone present.  Bezos praised the memo process in one of his letters to investors:  “Some have the clarity of angels singing,” he wrote.  “They are brilliant and thoughtful and set up the meeting for high-quality discussion.”

WSJ reported that getting the writing document right can become an obsession for Amazon employees as some of them repeatedly editing, soliciting feedback and aiming to be as succinct as possible. A memo can take weeks to perfect.

One Amazon employee, an engineer by training, says she never anticipated that she would be writing on the job. But after crafting dozens of memos, she’s found it to be an efficient way to exchange information and prompt a smart discussion.

So much so that she now says, “I despise PowerPoint.”

I digress to add that such a perspective – criticizing PowerPoint — would irritate a partner of I mine in the firm from which I retired several years ago, though I still serve there as an “emeritus partner.” My former partner is a solid writer and, it must be added, uses PowerPoint to good effect. For him, PowerPoint is not just a tool to display words on a screen. He uses it, with solid graphics, to illustrate what words mean and, in that way, makes good use of a system that gets better every time graphics appear.

For Amazon, memos have been at the root of a number of innovations, from Amazon’s Prime Now delivery service, which offers customers items in as little as an hour, to programs that were part of Amazon’s decision to retrain a third of its workforce.

One 21-year veteran of Amazon coaches her team not to solve too many technical problems in a memo or force a conclusion when one is uncertain. “If you do that, you end up watering down the project to average, because the technology likely doesn’t exist,” she says. “It’s something we may need to invent.”

Amazon’s Alexa, she reports, started with a vision presented in a memo, even though the company had to later build the technology to power it.

“You actually have to carve out space in your calendar and your brain to really be able to think and spend the time writing,” she says. “Especially if you’re trying to come up with something visionary that hasn’t been done before.”

So, for me, writing is a way to think more clearly. If you have to write something down, you often think through issues and implications more carefully.

Further, the challenge is not to write in any particular style; it is to write to communicate in words that can have a sense of rhythm, but also convey more than just the words themselves.  Good writing indicates good thinking – for Amazon and, I hope, for others.

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.

I said that yesterday’s post might – or at least should be – the last I wrote about impeachment.

I lied.

Which makes me a lot like President Donald Trump who lies for a living.

Today, I write to follow up on two articles I read in the Wall Street Journal this morning – one by a retired U.S. diplomatic official, David Seminara, and another by one of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan.

First, the retired diplomat, Seminara, wrote this:

“I think the House impeachment inquiry is a partisan fishing expedition, but as a former U.S. foreign-service officer, I tuned in to the hearings rooting for my erstwhile colleagues to acquit themselves well. Instead, the hearings were a made-for-TV spectacle in which foreign-service officers were used as props in a political drama.”

This critique caught my attention because, as I watched hours of the impeachment process this week, I was very interested in the conduct of the administrative officials who testified at the request, if not demand, of Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

That was because, at one point in my career, I served in various administrative capacities in government, in both the Executive and Judicial Branches, albeit without the very high-profile nature of those who testified in Washington D.C. this week.

I found myself feeling just a bit of sympathy for them as they performed on a national stage, including with TV cameras whirring. No doubt they would rather have been back at work doing the down-to-the-earth business of government.

Were they, as alleged by Seminara above, “props in a political drama.” Perhaps, but I say they had very little choice.

Almost to a person, I thought they did a decent, workmanlike job of testifying to what they knew or thought. They came across generally as competent, reasonable public officials.

I could make an exception for Gordon Sondland, the person with Oregon connections who bought his way into an ambassadorship.

As has been the case with his actions as ambassador, he seemed clearly out of his depth on the national stage. As one of my partners in my old lobbying firm said, “he does what he does in a state of hubris.” Much of that owes to the fact that he enjoys telling people how rich he is and, as a hotelier with an acid tongue, sometimes acts like Trump.

Still, it should be said that his testimony, whatever his motivation, confirmed first-hand that Trump sold out American security interests for his own political ends.

During the proceedings, I also found myself wondering what it would be like to serve as staff to members of the Intelligence Committee because, without any of the profile of this process, that’s what I did when I was in Washington, D.C. many years ago – serve as staff to a congressman, one from Oregon.

Preparing drafts of public statements and question lists would have been what I would have been doing. So, seeing, on camera, some of staff in the background watching their bosses perform, brought back memories for me.

On to the columnist, Noonan. She wrote:

“What was said consistently undermined Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

“He not only doesn’t know where the line is; he has never wanted to know, so he can cross it with impunity, without consciousness of a bad act or one that might put him in danger. They were no match for his unpredictability and resentments, which at any moment could undo anything.”

Noonan gets it right – Trump crosses all normal political lines with impunity because he thinks he is above it all and he knows his supporters — almost unthinkingly, I add — will go along with him.

He doesn’t want to know about the lines of conduct and political behavior. If it was only that, it would be one thing. But his “unpredictability and resentments” have gotten the U.S. in trouble internationally, not to mention nationally, during his three years in the Oval Office. The very foundations of U.S. democracy are stake. The impeachment process is only the most recent instance of his hubris, to use that word again.

It remains likely that we, as Americans, will not see Trump leave office until the next election, if then.   Despite all of the evidence, the U.S. Senate is not likely to convict him. So, I say all of us should identify a candidate who can provide real, ethical, honest leadership for the country – and then elect him or her in 2020.

Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff put it very well as he ended the current roster of public hearings.

In a reference to Watergate, he said, “What we’ve seen here is far more serious than a third-rate burglary of the Democrat headquarters.”

NOTE:  This updates post from earlier this morning.

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.

Well, at the moment at least, I cannot stop – reflecting and writing about impeachment.

In between games of golf – my priority – I have watched at least some of the impeachment hearings.

Not great TV if the goal is ratings, given the often-arcane nature of the testimony. The ranking member on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes from California, announced in one of his opening statements that ratings would not be up – and he came across as thankful for that, given that he is a Trump defender.

To Nunes, I say who cares.

The point is not TV ratings. It is a serious process to assess the conduct of President Donald Trump and his apparent efforts to condition U.S. aid to Ukraine on getting dirt on one of his possible opponents in the 2020 presidential election.

As a government junkie, I also have been very interested in the interplay between and among federal agencies, especially the State Department, the Defense Department and the Office of Management and Budget.

Does Trump’s apparent conduct rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

It’s a legal phrase better defined by my attorney friends than by me, a retired lobbyist.

But I answer yes.

For Trump and his acolytes to consider political favor conditions as being appropriate is a dereliction of public duty. The issue is Ukraine security, not dirt on one of Trump’s opponents.

Trump didn’t understand that, which is typical of his behavior – what he wants for his own aggrandizement always tops what is good for the country. It’s the same selfish, narcissism we have seen for three years now.

According to my on-line dictionary, “High crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review – ‘The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for ‘intentional, evil deeds’ that ‘drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency’ — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.’”^[

That’s interesting stuff in the sense that, even the Harvard Law Review, opines that high crimes and misdemeanors can refer to misdeeds by a president “without violating any criminal laws.”

An attorney friend suggested that what the founding fathers meant by the phrase was more important that what the Harvard Law Review says now. Well, point taken, but who knows what the founding fathers meant? I prefer to take their language and reflect on what it means today so many years after the good words actually were put to paper.

Yesterday, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, produced riveting testimony before the Intelligence Committee. He confirmed that there was a “quid pro quo” in the Trump Administration dealings with Ukraine, but not one in the normal business of international security negotiations. It was a deal related to getting the dirt Trump wanted on Joe Biden.

Sondland witnessed the Trump demands and heard what Trump said about what he wanted.

Here’s the way The Atlantic put it:

“…in his testimony today, Sondland seems to have found his sense of care. Systematically but consistently, he is undermining all of the pillars of Trump’s defense that he did not extort political assistance from Ukraine.

“Was it a quid pro quo? ‘The answer is yes.’ Were Sondland and others acting on their own? ‘We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.’”

Trump defenders tried to deflect Sondland’s words by saying he was reflecting what he “thought” or “presumed,” rather than what he knew first hand.

But, for me, there can be little question but that Trump wanted something of benefit for his upcoming political campaign, not something for the good of the U.S.

To me, regardless of political affiliation, obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously “high crimes.”

Impeach the president in the House, then convict him in the Senate.

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.

Well, at the moment at least, I cannot stop.

In between games of golf – my priority – I have watched some of the impeachment hearing.

Not great TV if the goal is ratings, given the often-arcane nature of the testimony. The ranking member on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes from California, announced in one of his opening statements that ratings would not be up – and he came across as thankful for that, given that he is a Trump defender.

To Nunes, I say who cares.

The point is not TV ratings. It is a serious process to assess the conduct of President Donald Trump and his apparent efforts to condition U.S. aid to Ukraine on getting dirt on one of his possible opponents in the 2020 presidential election.

Does Trump’s apparent conduct rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

It’s a legal phrase better defined by my attorney friends than by me, a retired lobbyist.

But I answer yes.

For Trump and his acolytes to consider such conditions as being appropriate is a dereliction of public duty. The issue is Ukraine security, not dirt on one of Trump’s opponents.

Trump didn’t understand that, which is typical of his behavior – what he wants for his own aggrandizement always tops what is good for the country. It’s the same selfish, narcissism we have seen for three years now.

According to my on-line dictionary, “High crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review – ‘The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for ‘intentional, evil deeds’ that ‘drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency’ — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.’”^[

That’s interesting stuff in the sense that, even the Harvard Law Review, high crimes and misdemeanors can refer to misdeeds by a president “without violating any criminal laws.”

An attorney friend suggested that what the founding fathers meant by the phrase was more important that what the Harvard Law Review said. Well, point take, but who knows what the founding fathers meant? I prefer to take their language and reflect on what it means today so many years after the good words actually were used.

Yesterday, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, produced riveting testimony before the Intelligence Committee. He confirmed that there was a “quid pro quo” in the Trump Administration dealings with Ukraine, but not one in the normal business of international security negotiations. It was a deal related to getting the dirt Trump wanted on Joe Biden.

Sondland witnessed the Trump demands and heard what Trump said about what he wanted.

Here’s the way The Atlantic put it:

“…in his testimony today, Sondland seems to have found his sense of care. Systematically but consistently, he is undermining all of the pillars of Trump’s defense that he did not extort political assistance from Ukraine.

“Was it a quid pro quo? ‘The answer is yes.’ Were Sondland and others acting on their own? ‘We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.’”

Trump defenders tried to deflect Sondland’s words by saying he was reflecting what he “thought” or “presumed,” rather than what he knew.

But, for me, there can be little question but that Trump wanted something of benefit for his upcoming political campaign, not something for the good of the U.S.

To me, regardless of political affiliation, obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously “high crimes.”

Impeach the president in the House, then convict him in the Senate.

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 problem for Senator Warren, as she campaigns for the Democrat nomination for president, is that she can’t sell her health care plan.

The more potential voters know about her plan to give all of health care to bureaucrats the more they don’t like it.

It’s one thing to call for a government role in health care. It’s another to say only government will play a role.

No private health care.

If you like your health insurer, you can’t keep it. If you like your physician, government will tell whether you can keep the relationship or not.

Health care is an issue of national concern and a country as capable and diverse as the U.S. should be able to design a better system, one that includes a reasonable role for government AND a reasonable role for the private sector.

All of this came to the fore this morning when the Wall Street Journal published this:

“Buttigieg’s (Pete Buttigieg, the small town Indiana mayor who is running for the D nomination) rise has been fueled in part by voter concerns about the health plan advanced by presidential campaign rival Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Those concerns may have room to grow. Shane Goldmacher, Sarah Kliff and Thomas Kaplan write in the New York Times that Warren is still struggling to market government-run health care:

…speaking to reporters the day after unveiling her Medicare for All financing plan, she uncharacteristically stumbled over the specifics, insisting, incorrectly, that only billionaires would see their taxes go up.”

Meanwhile, the Times reports, the United Kingdom’s government-run health plan hardly argues for a similar experiment in the U.S. Today Helen Puttick reports in the Times of London on the lengths patients of the National Health Service (NHS) must go to find a safe operating room:

“An NHS operating theatre has been mothballed because of staff shortages and patients having surgery are being taken to a mobile theatre run by a private company.

“NHS Scotland is paying to transport people daily almost 40 miles from Aberdeen Royal Infirmary to have their operations at the temporary unit. One of the theatres in the hospital’s general surgery suite has been shut because the health board cannot find enough trained nurses to safely provide treatment there.”

In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote this:

“Americans who want a preview of coming attractions under Medicare for All should take a look at the annual ‘winter crisis’ at Britain’s NHS that is starting early this year. Data released Thursday showed the worst waiting times in 15 years in English emergency rooms. Hang onto your warm winter hats.

“The NHS managed to treat only 83.6 per cent of emergency-room patients within four hours in October, compared to 89.1 per cent a year earlier and well short of the government’s target of 95 per cent.”

As I have posted previously in this blog, I had a recent experience with health care in the U.K. It wasn’t all good. It wasn’t all bad.

In the end, the service was effective, but it took quite awhile for it to be provided.

Is the service I receive in the U.S. any better? Well, I know the U.S. system better, having been a health care lobbyist for the better part of 25 years, so I know how to work my way through the system, plus the service locations are within easy geographic reach, not across the Atlantic.

For me, the bottom line is that the U.S. ought to be smart enough to find the best of health care in the U.K. and the best of health care in the U.S., merge them, and provide a better system for all Americans.

But it appears that today’s version of politics – going overboard from the left and just saying “no” from the right – will not produce a result worth preserving.

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.

Long-time Democrat activist Rahm Emanuel – once a White House chief of staff, as well as mayor of Chicago – said something insightful on a news/commentary show over the weekend.

I don’t usually cite Emanuel as worth quoting, but here is what he said:

“What motivates Donald Trump more than anything is a fear of being exposed.”

Stop and think about that for moment. That’s why, for instance, Trump continues to oppose any effort to see his tax returns. He doesn’t want to be exposed as someone who does not pay his full share, despite his net worth – at least net worth he suggests he has.

It also is why he blanches at any turn when it appears he might have to unveil aspects of his real conduct, no matter the subject.  And it is why he doesn’t want to be exposed as a fraud.

I lived through the Watergate debacle many years ago, and, while it was a very difficult time in this country’s history, it also had the effect of reinforcing ethics and honesty in government.

Now I venture to say I hope the current impeachment process produces the same result in relation to Trump – exposing his every criminal or nearly-criminal act.

As the Watergate investigation moved forward, we learned more and more about President Richard Nixon’s action to authorize the break-in at Democrat headquarters, plus to cover it up.

And, the more we knew about Nixon’s efforts, the more it weakened his ability to withstand the impeachment process. He resigned. For the good the country.

Will the same happen to Trump?

I suspect that, if the current impeachment process reveals “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Trump will just balk, calling everyone who opposes him part of an effort to overturn the 2016 election. He would try not to leave the presidency for the good of the country, even if convicted.

Meanwhile, as the impeachment process moves forward, Trump will try to influence media coverage with endless tweets and over-the-top rhetoric designed to show, again, that he thinks he always is the smartest person in the room and doesn’t have to answer to anyone, including the Constitution, Congress or the American people.

Late last week, his rhetoric may have caught up with him, at least for one news cycle (if there is a cycle any longer). It was when he rolled out a tweet designed to intimidate impeachment witness, Marie Yovanovitch, at the same moment as she was testifying. That became the story of the day, prompting even Republicans to criticize Trump.

Trouble is, many Americans still support Trump, no matter what he says or does. To Trumpians, he can do no wrong, no matter how wrong he is.

In a piece in the Washington Post this weekend, James Robenalt, an attorney in Cleveland and the author of four non-fiction books, including “January 1973: Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month That Change America Forever,” posits that the current impeachment process “won’t matter as much as Watergate’s.”

He adds: “Since we have the transcript of the Ukraine call, the testimony may seem anti-climactic.”

Then he recalls: “When John Dean testified in June 1973 before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities — for a full week — the nation was riveted. Here was a young former counsel to the president, telling the country that he had warned Richard Nixon that ‘there was a cancer growing on the presidency’ and that ‘if the cancer was not removed, the president himself would be killed by it.’ All three major networks carried his testimony. But for all the drama of Dean’s appearance, it did not push the public to conclude that Nixon had to go.”

It took a year of further Watergate revelations, culminating in the court-ordered release of a tape on which Nixon was heard ordering his chief of staff to tell the CIA to kill the FBI’s Watergate investigation, to push public opinion solidly toward impeachment.

So, I hope that the more we learn about Trump’s conduct, the more pressure will build toward conviction. That won’t occur unless Republicans in the Senate develop some political backbone (as I wrote in a blog yesterday) to oppose Trump.

Consider what has happened so far to Trump acolytes:

• Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is in prison after being found guilty on charges including fraud.
• Manafort’s deputy on the campaign, his longtime business partner Rick Gates, is awaiting sentencing after agreeing to cooperate with investigators and pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge. Gates was also part of Trump’s inaugural team.
• Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn is awaiting sentencing for having lied to federal investigators.
• Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen is in prison, serving time for charges including lying to Congress, fraud and campaign finance violations — charges in which he implicated Trump.
• A foreign policy adviser on Trump’s campaign, George Papadopoulos, was convicted of lying to investigators and served time in prison.
• Roger Stone has been convicted by a jury of lying to Congress, apparently to protect Trump as part of the Russia probe and is now awaiting sentencing.

Will Trump follow? As the standard phrase goes, only time will tell.

**********

And this footnote: I have been involved for several months as a volunteer on a committee formed by Oregon Common Cause to consider ways to promote ethics as a factor in current public service, as well as in the minds of voters. Since Watergate, ethics has receded as a factor in public life. Too bad. A commitment to solid civics, not to mention American democracy, requires a commitment to honesty, ethics, and integrity. All too often, they are missing.

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.

*********

Preamble: As I was writing this blog, I had the good fortune to listen to a public television presentation of Neil Diamond, one of my favorite singers still active in America. His final song – Coming to America – calls to a mind a different time in America, one where we valued people as people…and immigrants adding to the value and texture of our country. To our shame, that is no longer the case, at least for some, as Donald Trump has led us to hate others with whom we disagree. Too bad – and that perspective adds to this blog about the timidity of Republicans to oppose Trump.

*********

I wonder how long it will take Republicans to reject President Donald Trump and label him to be what he is, which is the worst president in U.S. history, one guilty of substantial misdeeds, some of them criminal, some of them creating a substantial security risk for the country.

It will take a dose of political courage to do the deed. But it needs to be done for the sake of our future.

All of this came to mind this weekend as I read a piece by Peter Wehner, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Egan Visiting Professor at Duke University.

Under the headline, “The Exposure of the Republican Party,” he wrote this, referring to facts emerging from the current impeachment process:

“That the president acted the way he did should surprise exactly no one, given his disordered personality and Nietzschean ethic, his pathological lying and brutishness and bullying, and his history of personal and professional depravity.  The president is a deeply damaged human being—and therefore a deeply dangerous president.

“But what was on display on Capitol Hill was not simply an impeachment inquiry into an unscrupulous president; it was the ongoing, deepening complicity and corruption of the party he leads.

“What makes the Trump era so unusual isn’t partisanship and political tribalism, which have been around for much of human existence. It is the degree to which the transgressive nature of Trump—his willingness to go places no other president has gone, to say and do things that no president before him has done—has exposed the Republican Party.

“There is hardly a pretense anymore regarding what the party, and the right-wing media complex, are doing. They are driven by a single, all-consuming commitment: Defend Donald Trump at all costs. That is the end they seek, and they will pursue virtually any means necessary to achieve it. This from the party that once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, and against moral relativism.”

I continue to wonder when Republicans will display backbone to oppose Trump, even if they believe it will come at the expense of their own power.

Better, I say, to act within ethics, honesty and principle than to cave in reflexively to a reckless president.

The early days of public hearings into impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump included explosive revelations by various State Department officials who tied Trump directly to asking Ukraine to investigate Democrat presidential candidate. From Bill Taylor to Donald Kent, to Marie Yovanovitch, they said Trump’s conduct risked the reputation of U.S. foreign service officers in favor of thugs and corruption.

More from Wehner: “But as damaging as Bill Taylor’s testimony proved, it was merely another massive boulder in the avalanche of evidence against the president. We are well beyond the point that any disinterested person can deny that the president abused his power and acted in a corrupt manner, in ways the American founders explicitly warned against.

“But what was on display on Capitol Hill on was not simply an impeachment inquiry into an unscrupulous president; it was the ongoing, deepening complicity and corruption of the party he leads.

“We are facing a profound political crisis. What the Republican Party is saying and signaling isn’t simply that rationality and truth are subordinate to partisanship; it is that they have to be obliterated for the sake of partisanship and the survival of the Trump presidency. As best I can tell, based on some fairly intense interactions with Trump supporters, there is no limiting principle—almost nothing he can do—that will forfeit their support. Members of Congress clearly believe Trump is all that stands between them and the loss of power, while many Trump voters believe the president is all that stands between them and national ruin. In either case, it has led them into the shadowlands.”

Wehner says he is still a conservative and has devoted a large part of his life to the Republican Party – at least the former party. Therefore, he avers, it is painful to watch all of this unfold for a political party that used to be led by a credible, though imperfect, stalwart like Ronald Reagan.

“The Republican Party under Trump is a party built largely on lies, and it is now maintained by politicians and supporters who are willing to live within the lie.”

Surely, part of Republicanism is to oppose the left of the Democrat party which wants to make America all about government, putting bureaucrats in charge of nearly every area of life – health care, education, infrastructure, debt – all the while imposing huge tax increases that cannot be sustained.

I say this:

• It’s time for Republicans to stand up against Trump as a matter of commitment to principle, adding their voices to Senator Mitt Romney from Utah.
• It’s time for Republicans to find a credible alternative to Trump who can oppose the machinations of the far left.
• It’s time for Democrats to identify a candidate who has a chance to beat Trump – if, that is, he survives impeachment.
• It’s time for all Americans to support solutions from the center – the smart middle, as I like to call it – instead of opting for disagreement and dissension.

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.

Is what is occurring in Washington, D.C. – an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Donald Trump – warranted or not?

There are multiple ways to answer that question.

My answer — if I go to the length of commenting on a process in which I am not involved directly and which is occurring more than 3,000 miles from where I live – is simple: Yes.

I say that because what I hope occurs is what happened when Congress subjected then-President Richard Nixon to an impeachment process after the Watergate break-in.

Then, the more we learned about Nixon’s actions, the more it showed how he broke the law even as he contended that he did nothing wrong. So, I hope the more we learn about Trump’s conduct the more it will be suspect and worthy of conviction, thus removal from office.

Far-fetched? Yes, in our increasingly tinged and over-the-top version of politics these days, especially as Republicans work to defend “their leader.”

Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, put it this way after the first day of public impeachment hearings in the U.S. House:

“So what else is new? Internal policy battles of this intensity (the one dealing with what Trump and his administration do and when and why did they do it) are a constant of government life.

“Other than dragging in the Bidens, this is hardly different from a host of similar Trumpian foreign-policy interventions: His decision after the first summit with Kim Jong Un to reduce military exercises with South Korea; the 2018 decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, which caused Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to resign; his decision in 2017 to impose tariffs on virtually all the major U.S. trading partners, no matter the effect on domestic farmers and businesses; his decision last month to pull U.S. forces in northern Syria away from the Kurds, who he said ‘didn’t help us with Normandy.’”

“My own favorite of stillborn Trump foreign-policy ideas,” Henninger continues “was his tweet, days before the anniversary of 9/11 this year: “Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday.” The Taliban at Camp David—now that would have been impeachable.”

Just consider, for a moment, Trump’s incredibly stupid actions as president. Impeach him, I say, for his stupidity, which puts America in jeopardy.

Henninger uses his words to contend that, at most, Trump and his administration should have been subjected to oversight hearings in Congress, not an impeachment process.

Add to that the president’s abhorrent personal conduct in office — his dishonesty, his intention never to cooperate with Congressional oversight, his failure to exhibit any of the leadership credentials of a president.

The time for impeachment had arrived.

Consider this from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

“There was something grave in it (the first day of impeachment hearings), and a kind of reckoning. This was due to the dignity and professionalism of the career diplomats who calmly and methodically told what they had seen and experienced. They were believable. It didn’t feel embarrassing to have faith in them.

“Republicans on the panel didn’t know what to do. They know what this story is, and I believe they absolutely know the president muscled an ally, holding public money over its head to get a personal political favor. But they’re his party, they didn’t want to look weak, they had to show the base they had his back. In their interruptions and chaos-strewing they attempted to do some of what the Democrats did during the Kavanaugh hearings…”

Noonan’s point – career, credible, experienced public servants telling Congress and America what they know about Trump – is worth repeating. For it may foretell what I hope the impeachment process produces, which is evidence that Trump should not sit in the Oval Office or be anywhere near the levers of presidential power.

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.

Two of my friends recently tussled with my post about whether official golf rules allow for use of what I’ll call a “mulligan” – the concept in golf that allows a do-over after a shot.

Most golfers would answer “no” to such a question.

First, the fact that I focus on this illustrates that I have nothing better to do than ruminate on golf rules – and, I post this halfway to Palm Springs, California where, yes, golf is on my agenda.

Second, on to the points made by my friends:

• One friend advised me that the word “mulligan” did not appear in the official golf rule book. True. To defend myself, I used the word only in colloquial fashion and not because it was official. My friend is right, so, from my on, at least in this point, I’ll put the word “mulligan” in quote marks.
• Another friend told me that there was a third occasion in golf rules where a “mulligan” was allowed. It is when a golf ball, hit off the tee or off the ground, disintegrates in flight. Play another ball without penalty.

To recall, I had earlier cited two incidents in golf rules where “mulligans” were allowed.

One occurred recently on the PGA Champions Tour. I player hit a three-foot putt, the ball lipped out of the hole, and came back to hit the player in the foot. The correct procedure was to take a “mulligan.” The player did not do so, hitting the ball where it came to rest and suffered a two-stroke penalty as a result.

The second occasion where a “mulligan” is allowed occurs when a golf ball hits a power line over the course, which tends to occur infrequently. In such a case, there is an automatic “mulligan” – no choice, hit again, no penalty.

See, if you read this post, aren’t you better off for doing so!