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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of my friends, a former state lobby colleague, asked a good question the other evening. It was this:

Do lobby coalitions work and, if so, how do they work?

Well, as a top Salem lobbyist, she probably already knew the answer. But, in this blog, I’ll endeavor to provide my best attempt at some perspectives, with comments.

1. What are lobby coalitions? The term refers to situations where groups with similar interests band together to advocate for results at the Capitol.
2. Do coalitions work these days? Yes.
3. Are coalitions a magic answer to achieving results for clients? No. They are one means to an end.

My view is that smart lobbyists at the Capitol are very willing to start or join coalitions because of their value, which I express in these ways:

• Coalitions help to verify that you are not alone in what you are advocating in Salem.
• Coalitions help to avoid what I call “the special interest contention” – statements by those who oppose you that you are just a special interest and, therefore, not worthy of consideration.
• Coalitions help to make arguments you advance better because those arguments have to pass muster in a group – a group whose members, I like to say, sing from the same sheet of music, but in different voices.
• And, of course, coalitions help to spread the work of lobbying around to a group, a fact which helps to indicate that advocacy is not just being done on the part of one lobbyist for one client.

Some lobbyists in Salem are good at working together in pursuit of a joint goal. But there are those who are not good at it, as well. I remember a situation where some of us who were advocating for targeted state funding for quality arts programs in the state – me for Oregon Public Broadcasting – got together to work together.

In several cases, we met at the Governor’s Residence in Salem because the First Lady was in favor of arts funding, especially for a program called “Main Street Oregon.” She clearly was on board with all other arts interests and believed that working together would increase chances for success.

At one meeting, when we went around the room to express solidarity with the group goal, one of the lobbyists said she could not join in an expression of support because, in the end, she might have to go her own way on behalf of her clients. In other words, a single interest was more important than the group interest.

With her comment, we had to kick her out of the meeting, plus the coalition, because she couldn’t support the group effort.

Let me put this more positively by citing a couple examples where, with colleagues in my firm, I created coalitions and used the collective advocacy to achieve solid results.

Case #1: When I represented Providence Health System and was advocating for sustained, if not increased, state government investments in Medicaid (the program that serves thousands of low-income Oregonians), I worked with my client to create what could be called an “internal coalition.”

It consisted of nurses and doctors within Providence who shared the goal of sustained or increased investments in Medicaid. With permission from these individuals, we produced one-page summaries, including their names, their photos, and their positions within Providence, along with their words advocating for Medicaid.

We then distributed these one-pagers at the Capitol, especially to legislators serving on the Joint Ways and Means Committee who would make the final decisions on funding.

Some might call this “grassroots lobbying” – getting real people from real places in Oregon to make their real advocacy known at the Capitol.

But, this also was a coalition and the result was that we sustained funding for Medicaid, even though there were many competitors for the state dollars.

Of course, beyond this internal resource, I and others chose to work within a broader coalition of all those interested in health care for low-income citizens, including the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the Oregon Medical Association, the Oregon Nurses Association, the Oregon Health Care Association (nursing homes) and various others who supported quality health care investments.

Case #2: When I was advocating for state funds to help defray Oregon’s share of the costs to deepen the Columbia River channel from Astoria inland to Portland, I joined with colleagues in my firm to develop another coalition that consisted of two parts.

The first was various business groups that shared the goal of a deeper channel, which would mean bigger ships could ply their way to inland ports and, thus, increase economic activity in region. This part of the coalition included various union groups, as well as businesses.

The second part of our coalition was to create a list of businesses in every county in the state that had relied, in the past, on a viable Port of Portland to ship goods out and receive goods in. They wanted to be able to rely on the Port again, so were very willing to coalesce around the major investment.

This illustrated that a deeper channel was not just a goal for the Port of Portland. It was a goal for a far deeper coalition – pardon my play on words — throughout the state of Oregon.

The result was that we obtained the money to deepen the channel. Along with funds from the State of Washington and the federal government, the channel is deeper today and producing the predicted economic benefits for the regional economy.

So, given these examples and others I could cite, do coalitions work and are they a good idea? I say yes, unequivocally and clearly.

Creating them, participating in them and using them to achieve results should be in the tool-kit of any good lobbyist.

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.

Oregon Senate Republicans are still on the lam and there is no way to see how this political tussle will end, though late word appears to be that Senate Democrats may not have the votes to pass the controversial cap-and-trade bill on their own.

If that is, in fact, the case, Republicans may decided to return to Salem, though some of them say need any agreement in writing so what one called a “head feint” does not work against their wishes to see cap-and-trade die.

The issue is controversial enough that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) showed up this week with a story that began on the front page summarizing the status. For one thing, the WSJ carried a photo of Senator Tim Knopp, R-Bend, as he stood in a campground in Idaho out of the reach of Oregon State police officers who had been dispatched to find Knopp and his colleagues.

It Republicans don’t return to provide a quorum (20 senators are necessary and, otherwise, the Democrats have “only” 18, and, though that is a super-majority, still not enough to act on the Senate floor), a number of pieces legislation will die.

Bills have to pass by June 30, the deadline, by law, for the session to end. If action is not taken by that date, the bills automatically due.

And, in one case – the so-called “cap and trade bill” — Republicans won’t care because they want that bill to die. Or at least find the in-charge Democrats to be more open to amendments the Republicans contend would protect rural Oregon.

The Rs call cap-and-trade a Portland centric bill that will mean economic harm for anything and anyone east of the Cascades.

Here, based on reporting by the Oregonian, are a few more facts about the walk-out:

Is it unusual is it for Oregon lawmakers in one party to flee the state to stop action on a bill?

During the last 20 years, there were two high-profile walk-outs prior to this session. In 2001, Oregon House Democrats left the Capitol and hid out for nearly a week to stop a vote on a Republican legislative redistricting bill. Since the governor was also a Democrat, House lawmakers did not have to worry that he would send state troopers after them.

The second incident was in 2007, when Senate Republicans denied Democrats a quorum in order to block a plan to convert $300 million in corporate tax refunds to a state rainy day fund. Senate President Peter Courtney dispatched state troopers to Oregon State University where then-Senators Frank Morse of Corvallis and Roger Beyer of Molalla were watching the Beavers’ opening game. Troopers chastised both men, but ultimately didn’t have to bring them back: Democrats were only one member shy of a quorum and then-Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, agreed to return to the floor.

Are Democrats refusing to listen to Republicans and compromise at all?

Republicans have repeated this line, but it may not be entirely accurate. Democrats have made significant concessions to specific industry groups, including electric and natural gas utilities and the state’s entire industrial sector. They’ve also added provisions to blunt the policy’s impact on low-income Oregonians. But they have voted down or refused to hear amendments – some of them from Republicans and others authored by industry groups — that they feel would remove enough teeth to make the legislation useless.

So, Senate Republicans – clearly in the minority by a current tally of 18 to 11 – believe they have been ignored, as have their constituents from Eastern Oregon. The only course left, they believe, is to run.

Are state troopers really going to surveil and handcuff lawmakers? How have troopers acted in this situation in past standoffs?

Oregon State Police have called absent Republican senators on their cell phones and asked them to return to the Capitol. However, troopers do not appear to have plans aggressively to track the missing lawmakers or slap handcuffs on any they find. Instead, a police spokesman said “patience and communication is and always will be our first, and preferred, option.”

Why are Republicans so insistent on and Democrats so averse to letting the people of Oregon decide this issue?

Republicans know their constituents largely oppose the carbon cap, and they suspect many unaffiliated and Democratic voters also won’t be excited about higher gas prices. They want the people to have a say.

Democrats want the system, which they say appropriately protects key Oregon industries and low-income people, to take effect as soon as possible, not wait years for voter enactment and subsequent implementation.

Also, Democrat Governor Kate Brown said she and Democrats in the Legislature were elected with a platform to pass cap-and-trade, so she wants to do that, not defer to a public vote.

Still, Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, announced today that Democrats don’t have the votes to act on cap-and-trade. Here’s how it works.

The Ds can lose only two seats to get to the required 16 and even that may be up for challenge on the basis that a tax increase bill, if that is what cap-and-trade includes, then a three-fifths majority would be required. That means all 18 Ds would have to vote for it.

If it is deemed not to be a tax, then 16 votes are necessary and that’s what Courtney said is lacking.

Whatever happens, the current shenanigans will be another blot on the record of the Oregon Legislature.

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 leading Democrat candidate for president in 2020, former U.S. Senator and Vice President, Joe Biden, has come in for strong criticism recently from those running against him.

The issue?

He said that, when in the U.S Senate, he found a way to work with such colleagues as James Eastland, an avowed segregationist. Biden wanted produce compromise on issues in Congress – compromise, not on racist issues, but on other topics before the Senate Judiciary Committee which, back in the day, was chaired by Eastland

No would one say Biden is, himself, a segregationist, but the criticism was lodged nevertheless, no doubt in part by other Ds running for president who believe there is no alternative but to rake Biden over the coals, given his large polling lead.

Advance their own cause by tearing Biden down.

As one observer of all from my position in the cheap seats out West, I abhor the criticism Biden has received lately.

To me, all he said was that, in Congress, he tried to find middle ground by working with others, even if he disagreed wholly with their general views and background.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Ryan Clancy, now a strategist for the group “No Labels,” and a former speechwriter (not affiliated in any way with Biden’s current presidential campaign), put it this way.

Democrats, Give Biden a Break

The pile-on over James Eastland epitomizes everything that’s wrong with politics.

“Robert Byrd was the Democratic Senate majority leader from 1977-81 and again from 1987-89,” Clancy wrote. “He was also once in the Ku Klux Klan.

“What should we think of the admired and even iconic Democrat senators who worked with Byrd? Dined with him? Even said nice things about him? Ted Kennedy. Al Gore. George Mitchell. Bill Bradley. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Should they be discredited and tarred with the sins of their Senate colleague?

“It’s a question worth considering in light of the attacks on Joe Biden for saying at a fundraiser that he ‘got things done’ with two southern segregationist senators even though he vehemently disagreed with them on civil rights and other issues.”

Clancy says that “durable progress in Washington requires consensus, sometimes with people whose views you find objectionable. No doubt Biden would have been better off citing his bi-partisan work with someone like Bob Dole or Dick Lugar rather than Eastland.

“You could argue there was little good in a man like Eastland—that he wasn’t caricatured as a racist, but was one—and I’d agree. But when Biden arrived in the Senate in 1973, Eastland chaired the Judiciary Committee. To serve his constituents and the country, Biden had to forge working relationships with powerful senior colleagues.”

The problem is that Democrats talk about Republicans and Republicans talk about Democrats, not as fellow citizens to be debated, but, rather, as enemies to be destroyed. Increasingly, Clancy adds, the same thing – acrimony — is happening within the parties “as purists and pragmatists battle for primacy.”

“Citizens often prefer politics as performance art and never miss an opportunity to take something an opponent said, twist it and present it in the worst possible light.

The rule in politics these days is a cycle of outrage and denunciation that never ends and makes our government and our lives worse. It is no wonder Americans have such a low opinion of our politics and politicians.

For me, the shrinking middle ground – the shrinking ability to work together to solve the nation’s problems — signals that the future of America as a democracy is literally at stake.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube from Nuremberg to Budapest, impressions from the trip still arrive in my thoughts every day.

The most dominant one revolves around the incredible, hard-to-describe crimes of Adolph Hitler as he led Germany to try to conquer the world – or at least part of Europe — as well as try to exterminate an entire race of people, the Jews.

The huge, negative impression of Hitler was underlined at the start of our trip when my wife Nancy and I toured the Documentation Center and Zeppellin Field in Nuremberg where Hitler rallied Germans to follow his cause. The Center, which documents the rise and fall of Nazism (the last exhibit in the center chronicles the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials), is preserved to this day, at least in part, we were told by our tour guide, so the Germans of today remember the past and avoid falling into the Nazi trap again.

Good for them, I say.

The Nazi atrocities also was called to mind as we left Budapest for the U.S. on June 6, the 75^th anniversary of D Day. We weren’t there for the events to commemorate the events of the Day in 1944, but the events recalled to our minds our previous trip to Normandy where we stood on the bluff looking down at the Omaha Beach – as German soldiers did in 1944 – where 90 per cent of the first wave of Americans were either killed or maimed.

Still, the landings at Omaha and other beaches were successful – if war can ever be termed “successful” – and signaled the end of Hitler’s Germany. Unfortunately, Hitler killed himself in his bunker as the end drew near, which meant he would not stand trail for his war crimes.

Well, on to a few other random impressions of our Danube River Trip – impressions that, thankfully, don’t revolve around war.

Smoking/Nearly half of the population smokes as they walk down a street. Plus, if you sit outside in a restaurant, often worth doing in America, you contend with smoke all of the time in Europe. Tobacco companies must love Europe!

Topography/In and around the Danube, the land looks and feels much like Oregon, with rolling hills and, on occasion, the Alps in the background.

Vineyards/In many areas, grape crops are built on hills, but in contrast to some areas of France, the rows run in a horizontal direction. In France, they often run vertically up and down steep slopes.

Communism vs. freedom of thought and enterprise/Our tour guide in Prague – before we boarded our ship in Nuremberg – said she loves the fact that the Czech Republic threw off communism. A democracy-of-sorts in the Republic allows her, she said, to think on her own, talk on her own and be creative. By contrast, her mother, now 73 years of age and still living in Prague, wants a return to Communism so “she can be taken care of in her advancing years.”

Number of river ships/The numbers we heard sounded crazy. Ten years ago, there were about 240 ships. Nor there are about 1,200. And the total has contributed to tourism along the Danube and other rivers.

Thoughts on the boat accident on the Danube in Budapest/The number of ships also holds the potential for accidents on a heavily traveled river like the Danube. About a week before we arrived in Budapest, a daily-tour boat collided with a river cruise ship and the smaller boat went down quickly, with the loss of life numbering nearly 30. Still, we were allowed to dock in Budapest, which made for a good last day in Hungary.

Car speeds in Bavaria and Germany/On major highways, there is no limit on speed. Go as fast as you want.

Type of trucks in Europe/Most commercial hauling trucks in Europe have straight fronts, not the bulbous noses of American 18-wheelers. Better, I guess, to play their way around often-narrow roads. American truck drivers might not survive in Europe.

Trucks not allowed on the road on weekends and on “bank holiday”/We also learned that truck are not allowed – at least usually – on roads on weekends. For that reason, there were often a huge number of trucks parked on what we could call “truck stops” in the U.S.

Different sequence of stop-lights (yellow, green, red)/If we were driving in Europe, we would have to get used to a different lighting sequence. For us in the U.S., a yellow light indicates that red is next. In Europe, yellow shows up as lead for a green light. Not a big deal, but interesting that, as in the case of many other things, the U.S. wanted to be different than Europe.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For the life of me – a veteran political junkie – I cannot figure out “our” president, one Donald Trump.

He conducts himself with discord and disagreement every day of his life. And the disagreement often is with himself.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank made that point recently.

“Only a man who is, like, really smart could perform mental gymnastics at the level President Trump has attained over the past few days.

“On Saturday, Trump declared that the New York Times committed a ‘virtual act of treason’ by reporting on a U.S. cyber campaign against Russia.

“Mere seconds later, he proclaimed that the supposedly treasonous report was ‘ALSO, NOT TRUE!’”

While I don’t make as much money as Milbank skewering Trump – in fact, it is zero for me – I think Milbank has a very good point.

The way I put it is that Trump usually believes his own lies. He utters one lie one minute, then utters an opposite lie the next. To him, both are true.

All of this came together for me as Trump kicked-off his campaign for re-election in Orlando, Florida, a nod to the fact that his campaign strategists believe he has to win Florida to be re-elected.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column showed up with a story reporting that “the fact-checkable claims were different this time around, but history repeated itself nonetheless. Trump’s campaign speech kick-off speech in Orlando was littered with the same false or misleading claims he has so often repeated as president.

“Phony numbers on trade. Unfounded claims about immigrants. False statements about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Fishy economic statistics and wild exaggerations about his presidential accomplishments.”

Further, on the day of Trump’s visit, the hometown paper, the Orlando Sentinel, published an editorial announcing that it would not endorse him for reelection.

“After 2½ years we’ve seen enough,” the paper said. “Enough of the chaos, the division, the schoolyard insults, the self-aggrandizement, the corruption, and especially the lies. So many lies — from white lies to whoppers — told out of ignorance, laziness, recklessness, expediency or opportunity.”

Now, I add that the Fact Checker column and the Orlando Sentinel’s announcement will no doubt infuriate Trumpians. They believe “their guy” is fighting against the liberals on the other side and, no matter what he says, he is right and they will support him.

In fact, the Trumpians thrive on the fact that he doesn’t go along with the usual conventions and norms of being president. He not only counters those norms, he runs them into the ground.

Now, I admit that the term “conventions and norms” sounds like old school. Better, Trumpians would say, to have a president who flouts the conventions and norms because he wants to get stuff done – stuff Trump supporters want done.

Below are a few examples of Trump’s duplicity based, Milbank writes, on what F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

Trump’s ability to function is a matter of much dispute, but if the ability to hold opposing thoughts in mind is a measure of intelligence, Trump is a very stable genius indeed. Nobody contradicts himself as forcefully, fluently and frequently as Trump does.

Witness a list from Milbank:

• Last December, Trump declared that “we have defeated ISIS.” The very next day he said Russia, Iran and others “will have to fight ISIS” without us.
• In recent weeks, Trump has said Robert Mueller conducted his probe in an honorable way and his findings offered full vindication and exoneration. During roughly the same period, Trump also promoted   the contrary idea that Mueller’s report is “total bullshit,” not to mention “fabricated” and “pure political garbage”
• Last month, Trump pronounced China’s Huawei “very dangerous” as a military and security threat; in the next sentence, he said this dangerous threat should be included in a trade deal.
• Trump earlier this year declared an emergency on the border because of a migration “crisis”; the same day, he said, “I didn’t need to do this” — and, two months earlier, he had boasted that the “border is tight.”
• Early on in his term, Trump proclaimed, in all caps, “MEXICO IS PAYING FOR THE WALL.” Exactly 11 minutes later, he complained that the border wall was in jeopardy because Democrats provided “NOTHING” to pay for it.’
• In December, Trump said he would be “proud” to accept responsibility for shutting the federal government to pay for the border wall; soon thereafter, he announced that, “The Democrats now own the shutdown.”
• In January 2018, he told a bi-partisan group of lawmakers he would sign any immigration deal they sent him. The next day, he said he would not sign such a bill without funding for his wall.
• In February 2018, Trump proposed comprehensive legislation with gun-safety measures, saying “it would be nice if we could add everything onto it.” Twenty minutes later, he said he supported a piecemeal approach.
• In June 2018, he tweeted an all-caps call: “HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD PASS THE STRONG BUT FAIR IMMIGRATION BILL.” Three days later, he tweeted: “I never pushed the Republicans in the House to vote for the Immigration Bill.”

I could go on. There is more here than anyone would ever have thought possible. Which underlines one more unfortunate fact about Trump – he is so duplicitous that it is impossible to count the ways he skewers facts and makes up information to achieve his ends.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I still remember the time when one of my good friends told me that, when Donald Trump won the presidency three years ago, she went out and danced in the middle of the street to express her happiness.

Perhaps she was exaggerating, but I don’t think so.

To preserve our friendship over the last three years, we don’t talk much about Trump. For one thing, there are better topics to share. For another, all Trump-talk would do is spark disagreement.

One of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, who writes for the Wall Street Journal wrote about this subject under this headline:

My Sister, My Uncle and Trump

They loved him and were sure he’d win. I couldn’t share their jolliness, but I respected their rebellion.

Noonan recounted that it was four years ago this week, June 16, 2015, when she encountered her relatives’ love for Trump. She thought of again this week as she watched Trump announce his re-election campaign.

“This guy isn’t going to be president,” she said then three-plus years ago. “We’ve been reading about his tabloid antics for 30 years. But he’ll have some impact, some support. Who? How much?”

Noonan continues (and it is better for me to use much of her words rather than trying to write me own):

“At this point (three years ago or so when Trump announced his first election bid) my phone rang,” Noonan writes. “It was my elder sister Cookie, formerly of Staten Island, New York, now living down South, a person who’s lived a hard life and gotten through it with a spirit she does not fully see or credit. She’s not particularly political, not at all partisan.

“She didn’t even say hello. She just said, ‘I loooooove him.’

“I was startled. Who?

“’Donald Trump. Did you see it?’ She’d watched the announcement live. ‘He’s going to win.’

“Cookie had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and told me he would win, so I knew I was hearing something.

“Honey, tell me why you love him.”

“’He’s telling the truth!’ He described our political life as she experienced it: Washington doesn’t care about the people, both parties are full of it, they don’t even care enough to control the border. ‘He’s the one who can break through and clean that place up.’

“We hang up and the phone rings again. It’s Uncle Patrick—early 80s, Brooklyn Irish, U.S. Marine, worked at a bank on Long Island.

“He doesn’t introduce himself either.

“’So how do you like my guy!’ He’s pumped.

“Would that be Donald Trump?”

“Yeah! D’ja see it?”

“We talked, the beginning of many such conversations between me and Pat and me and Cookie.

“Their gift was alerting me, honestly and early, that something was happening in America, something big and confounding, something that deserved concentrated attention — and respect.

“They were patriots; they loved America. They weren’t radical; they’d voted for Republicans and Democrats. They had no grudge against any group or class. They knew that, on America’s list of allowable bigotries, they themselves — middle Americans, Christians who believed in the old constitutional rights — were the only ones you were allowed to look down on. It’s no fun looking down on yourself, so looking down wasn’t their habit.

“But they were looking at their country and seeing bad trend lines. In choosing Trump, they were throwing a Hail Mary pass, but they didn’t sound desperate. They always sounded jolly. And I realized they hadn’t sounded jolly about politics in a while.

“Below the jolliness I sense the spirit of the jailbreak. They were finally allowed to be renegades. They were playing the part of the rebel in a country that had long cast them as the boring Americans —stodgy, drone-like, nothing to say. The working and middle class, dependable heartland-type boobs. Everyone else got to act up and complain. They were just there to pay the taxes, love the country, send boys to war.

“Now they were pushing back, and hell it was fun. It was like joining a big, beautiful anti-BS movement. It was like they were telling the entire political class, ‘I’m gonna show a little juice, baby, brace yourself.’”

For her part, Noonan said she thought, then and now, that America should think twice about “putting the American nuclear arsenal in the hands of a TV host.”

She wrote, “It is a weakness of Trump supporters now that they still cannot take seriously the un-readiness of the White House for a sudden, immediate and high-stakes crisis. They do not see the chaos and the lack of professionalism of the unstaffed government as a danger. It is a dreadful one.”

Noonan’s conversations with her relatives convinced her that they were among citizens who felt those who govern America do not really care about, or emotionally affiliate with, the people of their own country.

I believe the fault for all of this lies with both political parties, not just one side.

It would be possible to suggest that Democrats always have a better idea about a government solution for every problem. Just consider the views of the 23 or is it 24 Ds running for president. Most of them want to do away with democracy and cultivate a socialistic state, which means they want to spend other people’s money until there is no more left.

Republicans are different, of course, but no better at appearing to represent the country – all of the country. They just want to say “no” to everything, contending that there is not smart middle on any public policy issue.

Noonan’s relatives — Cookie and Patrick — are going to vote for Trump in the 2020 election. As Cookie texted to Noonan, “He is a marauder, a maverick.”

I suppose it is possible to understand the unrest that motivates many in the country to choose a person unfit to be president or act like a seasoned leader of the free world, with his finger on the nuclear button.

Still, I hope the unrest – not to mention zeal for Trump – means he will not get another four years in the Oval Office.

And, to be frank about my friend, I hope she will not be dancing in the streets again a year or so from now.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of my favorite Oregon lobbyists asked me the question in the headline the other day as she contended with a tough task – representing business interests in an Oregon Capitol dominated by anti-business Democrats.

The fact is that most Democrats have no idea about what it takes to start or stay in business. What’s more, they often don’t care. Or they don’t want to learn anything. Which makes my lobby colleague chafe under the weight of the fog.

So, as someone who represented businesses over more than 25 years at the Capitol, here are a few answers for my lobby colleague, though there are no magic ones.

PHRASE YOUR ASKS IN “PUBLIC INTEREST” LANGUAGE

One of the ways to doom any perspective you advance on the part of business is to accept a “special interest” label. That will almost surely kill your proposition.

Is what you advance a special interest? The answer is yes if you don’t mean the term in a pejorative way. There is nothing wrong with special interests until those who have them advance their cause only be denigrating others.

But it is better to find real perspectives that link with the public interest.

Here is one example from my years as a lobbyist. On behalf of Providence Health & Services, which is a business, as well as collection of hospitals and a major insurance arm, we advocated for increased funding for Medicaid, which serves low-income Oregonians.

While the increased funding would go to Providence’s bottom line, we did not emphasize that fact, though, of course, under questioning, we readily confirmed it.

What we emphasized was how the investment would help Oregon and, in particular, low-income citizens, both adults and children, who would have an easier time receiving health care services. We advocated that improving Medicaid funding was in the “public interest” – and it was.

Our approach was successful.

CREATE LINKAGES TO WHAT I CALL “THE JOBS ISSUE”

It is critical to contend that a piece of pro-business legislation is important to help your business client save and create jobs. I continue to be amazed that more public officials do not embrace the jobs issue as an important public policy platform.

For me, having a job is a major key to success and purpose in life, as well as a critical answer to many of the social ills facing this country.

So, on behalf of your business client, convey accurate and honest information about how a legislative issue will help save or create jobs – or, in the reverse, cost jobs.

It is likely many Democrats won’t buy the argument; they don’t appear to care about jobs as they inflate government and want citizens to pay more taxes. Still, the argument is a sound one that at least may give business opponents just a bit of pause.

FIND A CHAMPION, EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A CENTRIST REPUBLICAN, WHO KNOWS HOW TO CROSS POLITICAL AISLES

It often is better for your business perspectives to be uttered by a credible legislator who has the ability to work across party lines at the Capitol.

This, in fact, may be the most important of the tactics I have outlined so far.  Finding a champion is critical.

I managed to achieve this on numerous occasions over my 25-year lobby tenure. Champions may be few and far between these days, but they exist.

In a few cases, the champion I cultivated was Senator Neil Bryant, a Republican from Bend, who, today, calls himself a RINO – a “Republican in name only” — who would not fit in today’s far right, often-antagonistic Republican party.

On behalf of Providence, for example, he served as the champion for various health care issues and his status as a centrist leader created more success than I could have achieved on my own.

Another leader I cultivated was Senator Betsy Johnson, a Democrat from Scappoose who still serves in the Legislature. Her status as a centrist Democrat gave my business clients standing they would not have achieved otherwise.

Are champions a magic answer? Like all other strategies to advance the cause of business, no.

But, in a liberal legislature like the one in Oregon, finding the sweet spots of the “public interest,” job saving or creation, and cultivating champions can help any lobbyist post a few wins for business.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write. 

**********

NOTE:  Typos are the bane of any writer’s existence, especially mine.  So, because there were a couple typos in what I posted yesterday on the immigration issue, I post it again here.

**********

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube – including stops at World War II sites that chronicled the atrocities of Adolph Hitler as he tried to incinerate all Jews – I cannot help but think of this country’s issue with immigrants.

To be sure, the immigrants do not constitute a race of people, as was the case with the Jews, but they do represent poor folks who have been identified by “our” president, one Donald Trump, not worthy of a second thought.

I, for one, choose to stand against the Trump doctrine that immigrants do not deserve to come to this country because they, somehow, are second-class potential citizens and, even, criminals.

Here are the two perspectives on immigrants in this country.

Perspective #1: All immigrants, especially those from Mexico, should be bared from entering this country because they are criminals. So says President Donald Trump, along with many of his followers, who support his foolhardy support for building a wall.

Perspective #2: This country was founded on the backs of immigrants and, to this day, the United States benefits from the contributions of those who want to share in the freedom of life in the U.S.

Those perspectives are far apart and, apparently, never the twain shall meet.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post showed up recently with a clear description of the immigration problem in the aftermath of concern about Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexico as a way to stem the tide of immigrants (which did not fully work the Trump wanted).

Here is what Post editors wrote:

“The more durable fix (for the immigration problem) would be to allow for the legal flow of immigrants that the economy needs, including legal status for ‘dreamers’ — immigrants generally brought here as small children who are Americans in all but documentation. Such reform would then impose real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. Trump could achieve such a reform if he ceased inflaming the issue for electoral advantage, vilifying immigrants as ‘criminals’ and ‘invaders.’”

My basic question is this: Can politics and religion – read, Christianity – ever build bridges, not walls to deal with the immigration issue?

I am not sure, especially if you come from the perspective that politics and religion should never meet, at least in the public square.

I generally believe that to be true, but, in this case, I believe Christianity has something important to say about how this country treats immigrants.

In politics, apart from Trump’s diatribes, it strikes me that there should be a consensus around one basic proposition: This country should provide a way for immigrants to enter legally instead of, under Trump, making it more difficult and accusing all those who try to enter of being criminals.

For Trump and “his wall,” he must believe that he benefits if he leads his followers to be anti-immigrant. For him, the issue is not developing sound policy. The issue is either appealing to his base or fomenting controversy via Twitter, all in the continuing infomercial for his Trump brand, whatever that brand is.

As for religion – or, better put, being a Christian — I believe scripture contains admonitions for us that should capture our attention and compel our action.

Recent sermons at our church here in Salem, Oregon, dealt with our responsibility, as Christians, to help those less fortunate than ourselves; to care for what was called, the “quartet of the vulnerable” – widows, children, strangers, and the poor.

These were not sermons on immigration, per se, nor were they comments on the state of immigration politics in this country, which is a topic, fortunately, not dealt with from the front of our church sanctuary. The sermons were calls for us to function as real Christians.

These sermons emphasized the following to me:

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in Isaiah 58: 6-7: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: To loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

“Is it not to share your food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not turn away from your own flesh and blood.

“Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.”

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in James 2:15-16: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one says to him, go, I wish you well and keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”

We can go on in this country following Trump when he leads us to take care of only ourselves and not those who need help – to oppose all immigrants who want to enter this country. What he leads us to is division and selfishness, not collaboration and kindness.

Or, despite Trump, we can follow what the Bible says about helping others, no matter their particular station in life.

In his insightful exploration of the “pre-history” of the Holocaust, “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” (2011), German historian Götz Aly has observed that the Nazis’ racial theories were significant because they fomented anti-Semitism, which was already ingrained among all social strata of Germany and Austria by the time Hitler arrived on the scene, but more because those theories made hatred acceptable to the haters.

The idea was that an objective, scientific theory of racial purity lay behind their antipathy to the Jews. And, Aly wrote, the notion allowed Germans “to conceal their shameful, base resentment of others behind supposedly more sophisticated arguments.”

I fear that the same could be said of what anti-immigrants believe about those who want to seek a better life in this country. They are not like us, so oppose them.

Better, I say, to follow the scripture in Philippians 2:4: “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” – and, for me, the others in this case are immigrants.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I can write this headline, not just because of who won the U.S. Open yesterday and the way the victory occurred, but because of the winner’s personal pedigree.

The winner was Gary Woodland, an 11-year pro who had a good, but not great, record heading into the 119^th national golf tournament.

He prevailed on the fabled Pebble Beach Golf Links in Northern California, fending off a challenge from his playing partner on the last day Justin Rose, but also the lurking presence of the two-times-in-a-row U.S. Open winner Brooks Koepka.

Good for Woodland.

What draws me to Woodland as a competitor is that, first, he plays golf well, especially under pressure, but, second, is that he comes across as solid human being in doing so.

The best example was at the Waste Management Phoenix Open at the TPC Course in Scottsdale earlier this year.

There, Woodland, in a practice round, “starred” in a viral video of Special Olympics golfer Amy Bockerstette making par on famous 16th hole, the one with so many grandstands that the hole looks like it is being play in an amphitheater.

Woodland was the defending champion who helped shepherd Bockerstette, a college golfer with Down Syndrome, through her incredible tee shot, then an up-and-down out of the sand at one of golf’s most renowned holes.

By every account, including from Woodland, the star of the show was the 20-year-old Bockersette.

It’s also apparent how much Woodland relished being a part of it. “Something I’ll never forget,” Woodland said in January.

As he sat for media interviews after his U.S. Open yesterday, he recalled the moment with fondness. He noted Bockersette’s phrase as she prepared for the bunker shot, “I’ve got this.”

He also reflected on his own journey to golf’s peak, which started after he gave up other sports – basketball and baseball – to focus on golf.

What’s more important than golf to Woodland is his family. He and his wife have one young son who survived physical trials after birth, plus twins are due in a couple months.

Fittingly, on Father’s Day, Woodland said he’ll relish telling his children about his U.S. Open win, even as he does what his father did for him, which is call his children to proceed through life with a positive attitude.

“Positively is infectious,” he said.

“I’ve got this,” he might say.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Having recently returned from a river cruise down the Danube – including stops at World War II sites that chronicled the atrocities of Adolph Hitler as he tried to incinerate all Jews – I cannot help but think of this country’s issue with immigrants.

To be sure, the immigrants do not constitute a race of people, as was the case with the Jews, but they do represent poor folks who have been identified by “our” president, one Donald Trump, not worthy of a second thought.

I, for one, choose to stand against the Trump doctrine that immigrants do not deserve to come to this country because they, somehow, are second-class potential citizens and, even, criminals.

Here are the two perspectives on immigrants in this country.

Perspective #1: All immigrants, especially those from Mexico, should be bared from entering this country because they are criminals. So says President Donald Trump, along with many of his followers, who support his foolhardy support for building a wall.

Perspective #2: This country was founded on the backs of immigrants and, to this day, the United States benefits from the contributions of those who want to share in the freedom of life in the U.S.

Those perspectives are far apart and, apparently, never the twain shall meet.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post showed up recently with a clear description of the immigration problem in the aftermath of concern about Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexico as a way to stem the tide of immigrants (which did not fully work the Trump wanted).

Here is what Post editors wrote:

“The more durable fix (for the immigration problem) would be to allow for the legal flow of immigrants that the economy needs, including legal status for ‘dreamers’ — immigrants generally brought here as small children who are Americans in all but documentation. Such reform would then impose real penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers. Trump could achieve such a reform if he ceased inflaming the issue for electoral advantage, vilifying immigrants as ‘criminals’ and ‘invaders.’”

My basic question is this: Can politics and religion – read, Christianity – ever build bridges, not walls to deal with the immigration issue?

I am not sure, especially if you come from the perspective that politics and religion should never meet, at least in the public square.

I generally believe that to be true, but, in this case, I believe Christianity has something important to say about how this country treats immigrants.

In politics, apart from Trump’s diatribes, it strikes me that there should be a consensus around one basic proposition: This country should provide a way for immigrants to enter legally instead of, under Trump, making it more difficult and accusing all those who try to enter of being criminals.

For Trump and “his wall,” he must believe that he benefits if he leads his followers to be anti-immigrant. For him, the issue is not developing sound policy. The issue is either appealing to his base or fomenting controversy via Twitter, all in the continuing infomercial for his Trump brand, whatever that brand is.

As for religion – or, better put, being a Christian — I believe scripture contains admonitions for us that should capture our attention and compel our action.

Recent sermons at our church here in Salem, Oregon, dealt with our responsibility, as Christians, to help those less fortunate than ourselves; to care for what was called, the “quartet of the vulnerable” – widows, children, strangers, and the poor.

These were not sermons on immigration, per se, nor were they comments on the state of immigration politics in this country, which is a topic, fortunately, not dealt with from the front of our church sanctuary. The sermons were calls for us to function as real Christians.

These sermons emphasized the following to me:

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in Isaiah 58: 6-7: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: To loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

“Is it not to share your food with the hungry, and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not turn away from your own flesh and blood.

“Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.”

• The importance of recognizing the admonitions in James 2:15-16: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one says to him, go, I wish you well and keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”

We can go on in this country following Trump when he leads us to take care of only ourselves and not those who need help – to oppose all immigrants who want to enter this country. What he leads us to is division and selfishness, not collaboration and kindness.

Or, despite Trump, we can follow what the Bible says about helping others, no matter their particular station in life.

In his insightful exploration of the “pre-history” of the Holocaust, “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?” (2011), German historian Götz Aly has observed that the Nazis’ racial theories were significant because they fomented anti-Semitism, which was already ingrained among all social strata of Germany and Austria by the time Hitler arrived on the scene, but more because those theories made hatred acceptable to the haters.

The idea was that an objective, scientific theory of racial purity lay behind their antipathy to the Jews. And, Aly wrote, the notion allowed Germans “to conceal their shameful, base resentment of others behind supposedly more sophisticated arguments.”

I fear that the same could be said of what anti-immigrants believe about those who want to seek a better life in this country. They are not like us, so oppose them.

Better, I say, to follow the scripture in Philippians 2:4: “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” – and, for me, the others in this case are immigrants.