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 spent a portion of one morning this week watching U.S. Attorney General William Barr appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why do I feel a sense of, well, duty, to write again about Barr? Isn’t there already enough to-ing and fro-ing about him and his conduct? Probably. But I like to add my notions to the mix if only because I do not have much else to do in retirement.

To summarize, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were out to trap Barr. Republicans tended to treat him with at least a bit of respect.

But, for me, this was the bottom line: Barr is a consummate Executive Branch official. He is smart. He is savvy. He is schooled in the law.

But does he believe too much in “executive authority” as contended today in a column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post?

I don’t think so.

The fact is that Barr does not work for Congress. He relates to Congress.

And that is a key distinction, one not accepted by most Democrats who want Barr to follow their orders.

Do I say this in some misguided notion to protect President Donald Trump?

I answer with a resounding NO.

However it happens – through impeachment, then conviction, or through the ballot box in 2020 – I want Trump out of the White House. He has no respect for the office and tries to lie his way out of any situation, a further indication that, for Trump, being president is more about an infomercial for his brand, whatever that is, than respect for the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, I hold Barr in high regard.

So does the Wall Street Journal. No surprise there. And, also, no surprise that the Washington Post disputes that notion, suggesting that Barr destroyed his reputation this week.

Gary Conkling, a partner in the firm I retired from, CFM Strategic Communications, does not agree with me. I have not asked if I could cite his reasoning, but, because his blog on this subject is on the record, I have no problem with including his language, as long as there is attribution – so I attribute this.

Conkling writes:

“The sharp backlash to the press conference held by Attorney General William Barr prior to the public release of the Mueller report is evidence of the serious peril of spinning a story.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the findings of the special counsel’s investigation in Russian election meddling and potential collusion by the Trump campaign, it is hard to disagree that Barr’s summary of the report didn’t square with language in the report. That dissonance led to instantaneous criticism that Barr tried to spin the report’s findings in a positive light before anyone had a chance to read it.

“The result was a day-long drip of media reports and blogs detailing the gap between Barr’s summary and Robert Mueller’s findings. Critics said Barr acted more like Donald Trump’s defense attorney than the US attorney general. House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena to obtain the full, un-redacted Mueller report. Calls for Trump’s impeachment grew louder.”

Conkling is wrong.

All Barr did was write a quick description of what he saw in the Mueller report. He tried to check it in advance with Mueller declined to review it perhaps so he could criticize it afterwards.

Barr took this approach, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, release of the full report could take weeks, given the need to redact portions of it for four reasons – to protect grand jury reports (under the law), to protect intelligence sources, to protect the vigor on ongoing prosecutions, and to protect the reputation what he called “un-charged third parties.”

The fact is that Barr did his job. Did he, as Conkling suggests, engage in “spin.”

Yes, everyone in public life does, if the definition of spin is saying something which is better than saying nothing or trying to say everything.

A certain kind of spin is detestable – providing only certain facts that support your cause and putting those who disagree with you on the defensive. Look only so far as Congress to find the best (read, worst) spinners.

Don’t look at Barr.

What you see when you see or hear him is a consummate public official who has a clear understanding of the public interest.

Barr, as a public official, is not subject to regular slander laws. But, if he was, he ought to sue Senator Mazie Hirona, D-Hawaii. At the Judiciary Committee hearing, she treated Barr with contempt, calling him a liar and scoundrel without giving him any chance to respond.

Smartly, when Hirona was done with her harangue, Barr held his tongue. There was no need to say anything, given how Hirona had impugned what was left of her own integrity, if there was anything left at all.

For me, all of this involving Barr and the Mueller report is an illustration of a tension all the time these days – the one between the Executive Branch on one hand and the Legislative Branch on the other.

Legislators, both in Washington, D.C. and, for me, in Salem, act as if they want to manage programs and, when they don’t get their way, they chastise executives, often in public.

Am I biased? Yes. I worked in the Executive Branch in Oregon for many years and always believed that we ran programs and related to the Legislature, not reported to legislators in some kind of management sense.

Barr is an excellent representative of the Executive Branch, one of the best appointments President Donald Trump has made – which is, I guess, not saying much because Trump has made a slew of bad appointments.

Now, two footnotes:

1. Imagine this. What if Matthew Whitaker, the former acting AG, was sitting on the witness stand this week. It would have been far different. He would not have known what to say or how to behave.
2. I may have made this point previously, but, in the hearing this week, Barr answered some questions with one word answers – often just “no” or “yes.” That must have frustrated some questioners who wanted him to go on at some length, to fall into traps. His conduct reminded me of the late Montana U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield who was famous for one-word answers – often “nope” or “yup.”

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, I cannot figure out why so many elected officials want to impose new taxes BEFORE taking reasonable and intentional steps to force current government programs to produce results.

• We see the trend in Congress where Democrats in the House and Senate want you and me to pay more, with no heed to a return on current investments.
• We see the trend in the City of Portland where Commissioner Chloe Eudaly is researching ways to raise an additional $50 million for city programs, by raising taxes. [To that end, according to the Oregonian newspaper, the city’s top revenue official provided Eudaly with an analysis of seven possible tax increases, including a personal income tax on Portland’s top earners, a soda tax and higher property taxes.]
• And, we see the trend in the Oregon Legislature, as evidenced by the list below.

Four big tax increases are likely to pass in Salem in the next couple months.

1. Gutting mortgage deductions (HB 3349)
2. Imposing 16-cent gas tax (HB 2020)
3. Abolishing “kicker” tax refunds (SJR 23)
4. Imposing a $2 billion business sales tax (HB 3427)

Tax #4 got a big boost this week when the Oregon Business & Industry organization signed up for the tax after weeks of negotiations. The new money is supposed to flow to K-12 schools in Oregon, which could be one reason why some business interests, but not all, have signed up for it – and those that have not may be preparing for a public vote if the legislature passes the tax. [Nike already has put $100,000 in a political action committee to prepare to fight any anti-tax initiative.]

My notion is that one key step should precede any new, higher taxes. It should be an intentional effort by elected officials to demand better performance from current programs.

One way to achieve this would be to enact sections in all state program laws that impose performance measurements on the programs. As is the case in golf – forgive the analogy, but I am a golfer — if the programs don’t meet the measurements, they would be given one warning, and then, if failing a second time, they would be terminated.

As a lobbyist back in 2011, I tried this on behalf of one of our firm’s major clients, Youth Villages. The section in Senate Bill 964, which became ORS 418, pertained to private sector foster care programs, including those operated by Youth Villages.

Either they would perform or be gone.

Here’s the section of law.

“Requires a program to demonstrate successful child-drive outcomes when compared to alternative placement options and long-term cost savings. Bases termination or renewal of a contract on demonstration of the factors described above.”

What happened?

Nothing.

Legislators ignored the performance clause in the law as if it didn’t exist. So did members of the Executive Branch agency that was involved, the Department of Human Services. Now, eight years after passage of the bill, it stands as just words on paper.

The clause should have been implemented, not as a magic answer to Oregon’s foster care crisis, but as one step to improve situations for Oregon’s children.

This is just one of several examples I could cite of a law being on the books, but not enforced – or, probably, not even recognized.

So, to repeat, one of my reform proposals for the Legislature would be to enact specific performance language for all government programs before trying to convince the public – including me and other centrists — that new taxes are warranted.

Such performance measurements make sense at the federal level, too, but, given the huge sense of dislocation and distrust there, better to use this reform in Oregon.

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.

It’s incredible to write the phrase in the headline.

We have a president who lies as a matter of instinct. It doesn’t matter what the subject is. Donald Trump lies about it.

Lying is second nature to him.

So, the lies are so frequent that no one – not those on the right or left – can trust him for truth and honesty.

Here’s the way Washington Post editorial writers put it this week:

“As President Trump zoomed past a lowly personal milestone — his 10,000th false or misleading statement in his 27-month-old presidency, according to The Post Fact Checker — he let fly a series of whoppers on a subject that logic would suggest he’d be better off leaving unremarked: Family separation.

“The president, whose own administration imposed and then rescinded a systematic policy of wrenching migrant children from their parents, with no protocol in place to reunite them, now poses as a paragon of compassion that ended cruel laws in place before he took office. This is false.”

Ten thousand lies!

These days, as he faces a re-election fight, Trump will be taking credit for the positive state of the country’s economy.

But he deserves almost no credit for the result. Economic growth has happened despite his absolutely unconventional approach to the nation’s highest political office. Or, according to a recent Washington Post poll – if polls matter at all these days – many in this country believe a positive economy only benefits those at the top, not middle or low-income America.

For me, character matters in public officials.

Trump has none.

I hope someone will rise up for the 2020 election and appeal to those in the middle who want productive, honest action from government officials at all levels.

And that includes a continuing focus on building a strong economy

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.

The 750 golf courses is the record established by George Peper, an excellent golf writer who now edits one of my favorite golf magazines, Links.

In the current on-line issue, he reports this:

“About a month ago, I played for the first time a fine links course on England’s Somerset Coast called Burnham & Berrow. Now, normally this would be an occasion of no particular significance—certainly not worth trumpeting in the first line of a LINKS column—but in this instance it meant something. You see, B&B happened to be the 750th golf course I’ve played.”

Wow!

In his column, Peper went on to admit that he kept the names of all the courses on an Excel spreadsheet, so he could review the list by name of course, date of its opening, architect and various other facts.

Too much time on his hands, you might say.

Perhaps.

But, he enjoyed doing what he has done over the years, so what’s the problem?

Peper also issued a friendly challenge to readers to come up with their own list if they hadn’t kept a list like he had done.

I took that challenge and, with help from my wife and daughter, came up with my own list, which, incredibly for me, reaches about 175.

And, that is only a list of the courses I have played, not how many times I have played some of them, which, in the case of my home track, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, is a lot.

As Peper predicted, coming up with the list was a welcome mental challenge and enabled me to look back over my golfing life to recall great moments such as at Royal Dornoch in the small Scottish town of Dornoch and the Old Course in St. Andrews, also in Scotland.

Reflecting on experiences of the past – and the great venues involved – was a great way to spend part of a Sunday…after church, of course.

Like Peper, I also thought about new courses where I would still like to be able to play, including Pebble Beach and Spyglass in California and Pinehurst in the East. Perhaps some day.

But, meanwhile, don’t bother me – I’ll be working to add to my list and playing golf at Illahe.

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

The question in the headline should be in the forefront of our minds as we head toward the 2020 election.

So far, 20 Democrats are running to take on Donald Trump. Only one Republican has filed to run against Trump, thusTrump will be the R nominee for a second term in the Oval Office.

Who knows which of the 20 Ds will win the primary to take on Trump?

So, back to question – how do we choose a president.

Washington Post editorial writers contributed these thoughts early this week:

“We think the best way to judge ‘electability’ is not through polling data or race, gender or geography. Instead, let’s try to judge who would make the best president.

“For us, the first requirement, in this cycle, is a fundamental commitment to the norms, habits and values of democracy. The best — and therefore most electable — challenger will be committed to civil debate and respect for opponents. She or he will embrace the nation’s diversity as an asset, rather than looking to divide with scapegoats and imagined enemies.

“Compromise will be accepted as a handmaiden of principle, not its opposite. Public service, and public servants, will be respected; Congress and the judiciary will be acknowledged as equal branches; law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military will be understood to be beyond politics.

“The best candidate will understand the urgency of restoring U.S. leadership throughout the world, in respectful concert with democratic allies from Mexico and Canada to Japan and South Korea to India and Europe. While Americans have been paying too little attention, authoritarianism has been on the march.

“Just as in the 1930s, strongmen — today in China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and beyond — are seeking to snuff out freedom of speech, religion, and even thought. Just as President Franklin Roosevelt warned in the days leading up to World War II, if they succeed, the world for America will become a “shabby and dangerous place.’

“This time, they are promoting a model of control built on modern technologies of perpetual surveillance and monitoring. And this time, so far, the United States, which should be leading the fight for liberal democracy, has been, at best, missing in action.”

Consider the phrase from the Post – “The first requirement, in this cycle, is a fundamental commitment to the norms, habits and values of democracy. The best — and therefore most electable — challenger will be committed to civil debate and respect for opponents.”

On this, Trump fails miserably. So do most Democrats in Congress who head so far left as to be off any political spectrum while, at the same, eschewing any notion of compromise to deal with the nation’s pressing problems.

The Post advocates for a return to the times when “compromise” was not a dirty word. In fact, it is the exact definition of what government should be about, which is finding the smart middle where the best solutions lie.

Either the right or left extremes don’t work. Neither does the Trump approach, which is not right or left, but is more — do this my way because I am the smartest person around and the rest of you are worthy of only the derisive nicknames I give you – such as “sleepy Joe” for Joe Biden.

Now, to be sure, the state of the country’s economy will be top of mind for those considering how to vote – and economic realities always have been a major election factor.

Columnists Hugh Hewitt makes this point in a piece for the Washington Post:

“The first-quarter gross domestic product growth rate of 3.2 per cent sets up the first reality that will be noted in November 2020 because it telegraphs where the economy will be then: not in recession. Recessions are charted when GDP growth is negative for two consecutive quarters or more. That can and has occurred in sudden fashion — financial panics don’t send “save the date” cards. But the economy over which President Trump is presiding is strong and getting stronger. Innovation is accelerating, not declining. A recession before Election Day looks less and less likely by the day.

“Small wonder then that Trump dominates the GOP with an approval rating above 80 per cent. The administration’s deregulatory push is accelerating. More and more rule-of-law judges, disinclined to accept bureaucrats’ excuses for overregulation, are being confirmed to the bench. Readiness levels in the U.S. military have been renewed. Our relationship with our strongest ally, Israel, is at its closest in decades.”

All those facts bode well for Trump. I am inclined to say how unfortunate that is. What has happened is that, despite Trump’s immoral conduct in office, he will be getting a boost from a surging economy. Much of what is occurring cannot be credited directly to his account, for it has happened despite his petulance.

So, how do we choose a president? I’ll tell you later when I make my decision this time around, but a clue is that, for me, strength of character, morality, honesty and ethical behavior matter to me. Sometimes more than certain public policy developments where it is hard to assign credit.

 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.

This is one of three departments I run as a manager who reports only to one person – myself.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Just Saying.

So, today, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is open again and, as you will note, all of the items below come from the Wall Street Journal. That’s because it is one of America’s great remaining newspapers.

From the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporting on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s departure from the Department of Justice (DOJ): “’I did not promise to report all results to the public, because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings,’ he said. ‘It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges.’”

Comment: Rosenstein is right when he says “it is not our job to render conclusive factual findings.” Those on the left will never agree. Understanding this seminal Executive Branch perspective is critical to understanding how the Rosenstein and the DOJ have handled the Mueller Report.

In my view, credible Executive Branch officials – Barr and Rosenstein — handled things well. Do I agree with all of their steps? No. Does that matter? No.

More from the WSJ: “Rosenstein didn’t say what he thought of Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the report but joked about speculation over his physical appearance during a news conference ahead of the report’s release, where he stood behind the attorney general, stone-faced and silent.

“Last week, the big topic of discussion was, what were you thinking when you stood behind Bill Barr at that press conference, with a deadpan expression? The answer is, I was thinking, “My job is to stand here with a deadpan expression.’”

Comment: Great point. Rosenstein’s comment indicated both a sense of humor, as well as an ability to defuse a stupid media compulsion.

Rosenstein said he appointed the special counsel because he had a responsibility to make sure the Justice Department conducted an independent investigation, completed it quickly and brought criminal charges where warranted.

“But not everybody was happy with my decision, in case you did not notice,” he said. “It is important to keep a sense of humor in Washington. You just need to accept that politicians need to evaluate everything in terms of the immediate political impact.”

About the media: “Turning his attention to the news media, Rosenstein said: ‘Some of the nonsense that passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper it was printed on, if anybody bothered to print it. One silly question that I get from reporters is, ‘Is it true that you got angry and emotional a few times over the past few years?’ Heck yes! Didn’t you?

“He also fired back at what he called ‘mercenary critics’ who make threats, spread fake stories, and even attack your relatives … I saw one of the professional provocateurs at a holiday party. He said, ‘I’m sorry that I’m making your life miserable.’ And I said, ‘You do your job, and I’ll do mine.’

Comment: Today, what passes for news is not news at all. It’s just the media’s attempt to direct public opinion in a certain way – and that’s usually left of center.

Reporters and editors did a lot of good back in the day when they uncovered and reported on Watergate. Today, with the Mueller Report, journalists, if any are left, have done a very poor job.

Rosenstein is accurate when he pillories the media – and I say that as a former newspaper reporter– back with newspapers were printed on paper, left ink on your hands, and were relied in many local communities.

And from the WSJ on forced association dues: “By one recent report, some 210,000 Americans across two government unions have stopped paying ‘agency fees,’ once compulsory payments that the Supreme Court ruled last year violate the First Amendment. Keep an eye on a new case out of Wisconsin that aims to end another example of forced speech and association, this time involving state bar associations.

[Note: It was called the Janus decision.]

“Two lawyers in Wisconsin earlier this month filed suit against the state bar association that takes positions on policy issues from immigration to the death penalty. Fair enough, except that joining the bar isn’t voluntary in the Badger State. Paying dues to the bar is a precondition of practicing law in Wisconsin, and some 30 or so states have similar requirements.

“In other words, the bar is not merely a professional organization that sets ethical standards and disciplines lawyers. It is a quasi-government enforcement body. The plaintiffs argue that forcing them to fund the bar’s political speech infringes on their First Amendment rights by compelling them to subsidize views they disagree with.

The challenge has become more potent because of the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. Afscme. The Court in that case struck down compulsory public union fees that forced individuals to underwrite ‘private speech on matters of substantial public concern.’ The Justices overturned the 1977 precedent Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which Justice Samuel Alito called ‘a deferential standard that finds no support in our free speech cases.’”

Comment: Pro-public employee union mouthpieces hate the Janus decision because it takes away compulsory dues that financed their well-funded political contribution programs – and almost all of the money went to Democrats.

So, in this Wisconsin case pertaining to attorneys, it’s time for bar associations to exist on the basis of the services they provide, not the left-wing political contributions they make with forced dues.

Arguing for Joe Biden: “The best argument for Biden is that he can clear the field to take on Bernie Sanders and steer Democrats to the center-left rather than off the socialist cliff. Sanders’s faction appears to be a solid one-fifth or quarter of the Democrat electorate. This is panicking party bigwigs, who fear that Sanders would lose to Trump. Hence the hunt for a non-socialist alternative, such as Indiana’s polyglot Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“Biden’s assets include a plain-spoken persona—a Scranton scrapper who isn’t afraid to drop an occasional curse—that has appeal to Midwestern and union households. He’s also popular among black voters. For people fed up with gridlock, he has a reputation as a man who can get things done. In 2011 and 2012, Republicans told us that budget negotiations went well with Biden running the show, only to lock up when Barack Obama entered the room.

Comment: Now that he has declared for the 2020 nomination, Biden is coming and will come under increased scrutiny from those on the left in the Democrat party, which is most of them. They’ll bring Biden down to size so a more left-wing candidate – Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren – can win.

Of course, that may mean that Trump wins re-election, which would be terrible for our country.

Biden also is gaffe-prone, which will be highlighted over the next months. But, for me, much of his long record of public service is worth considering.

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 had a new experience today.

My wife and I traveled from our winter home in La Quinta, California, to Calexico, a town in California on the border with Mexico about 100 miles away from La Quinta.

It is a port of entry to the United States for potential immigrants from Mexico.

Why were we there?

Well, it was the most convenient and quick place to be interviewed pursuant to our application for what’s called “Global Entry,” a process much like what exists in the U.S. under the TSA Pre-Check program.

If you have Global Entry, the certificate will make it easier to return to the U.S. from, say, Europe, and to get through customs more quickly and easily. That matters to us because, with my wife as the best tour guide ever, we are planning a couple European trips.

To be interviewed to follow-up on our on-line Global Entry applications, we had to go to a place where there are customs agents, which often means an international airport. In this case, we could have headed West to Los Angeles, thereby fighting heavy traffic, but it struck us as a better option to head Southeast to Calexico.

One of the questions you may ask is whether we saw “Trump’s Wall.” No. But, if he would have found a way to get what he considers to be “his money,” we no doubt would have seen it.

Our travels took us through verdant farmland and watched the harvest of all kinds of vegetables. To think how the farmers get water, including from the Salton Sea, requires a solid imagination in hot weather that, in the summer, can reach as high as high as 120 degrees.

Beyond that, here are a few general perceptions about this first-time process for us:

• Though you don’t see it until you are almost there, the facility is an imposing one. Those who want to enter the U.S. come through guarded gates and have to pass inspections from customs agents. From the other side, our side, my first impression was that you were entering a prison.
• However, what was interesting to us was, as we entered to find the location for our Global Entry interview, we were not checked for anything. No wand over our bodies. No gate to go through. No bags to be checked.
• When we found the location for our interview, we had thought we would be ushered into a room to undergo the third degree. No. A polite customs official called us up to his post one-by-one and we stood to be interviewed for only a short period of time.
• In advance, solid planner that she is, my wife made copies of lots of stuff – our tax records, our investment records, and our identification (including drivers’ licenses and passports). We were supposed to have our birth certificates, but we have no idea where they are. Same is true of our marriage license. That may be home in Salem, Oregon, but we are not sure where.
• The agent complimented us on our preparation – no problem without the marriage license and birth certificates — and it didn’t take long for him to complete the process for each of us, which included both a photo and fingerprints.
• If all goes as planned – and we were led to believe it will – we should have our Global Entry certificates within two weeks.
• As we drove back Northwest toward La Quinta, we had to pass a border patrol facility on the highway. It took only a few seconds to be ushered through by the border agent because, I guess, we were white and didn’t look like immigrants – at least not at the moment, though all of our parents and/or grandparents on both sides are immigrants, though not from Mexico…from Europe. [But that – the U.S. immigration policy – is a topic for another blog.]
• We did find ourselves wondering how a border patrol agent, as courteous as he was to us, could get away with profiling, if that is, in fact, what was he was doing.
• Speaking of border patrol checkpoints, on our trip to Colexico, we passed another one heading North and West. There had to be three miles of cars and trucks waiting to pass. We had no idea why. Perhaps someone was looking for illegals.

All in all, today was a good experience for us and I got as close to Mexico, seeing it on the horizon, as I have been in my life. Close enough I 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.

Here’s a confession: I did not read the full Mueller report.

But, summaries of it in both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (note that I go both ways on this by reading quality newspapers from the right and the left) confirm what we already knew – Trump is a dedicated liar. You cannot trust anything he says as he continues to run the federal administration as an infomercial for his Trump brand. Truth is not a barometer.

An easier way to understand all this: Read one of the most recent Doonesbury cartoons by Garry Trudeau.

Here are the words in the cartoon, which provides a clear picture of Trump, probably less well than seeing the drawings, but…:

Panel #1: In a press conference (by the way, this, itself, is a remote occurrence with Trump), Trump is asked this question. “Mr. President, as you close in on your historic 10,000^th, documented lie…”

Panel #2: The questioner – “Everyone is still marveling over the 104 lies you packed into your two-hour CPAC speech.”

Panel #3: Trump answers, “so.” The questioner again: “So many people wonder how you do it.”

Panel #4: The questioner – “Is it fair to say that lying for you is metabolic, involuntary, like breathing in and out?”

Panel #5: The questioner again – “…that, if deprived of lies, your ability to function would be totally compromised?”

Panel #6: Trump answers, “no.” And Roland Hedley says – “wow, another one.”

This illustrates a Trump trait. Lying is second nature to him. He doesn’t even have to think about it. The number Trump lies tells is too large even to count.

Consider the recent release of the Mueller report. Trump lied about that, too, which is no surprise.

It’s past time for American to have a leader they can trust to tell the truth, even if they disagree from time to time with the policies of a federal administration.

I continue hope Democrats will be smart enough to nominate someone who will be able both to thwart Trump, as well as appeal to Americans in the middle. That means that they, the Ds, must get away from tearing down the very fabric of this country by adopting policies and approaches that are so far left they don’t even appear on any political spectrum.

For me, either we’ll see smart Democrats or I’ll be finding a third-party candidate when 2020 rolls around.

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.

As I awoke this morning, the sun was shining here in Southern California.

It was – and is – a fitting way to celebrate Easter morning!

The sun was out. He is risen!

Easter is more than a holiday when there is a scramble, among children, to find Easter eggs. It is more than traditional Easter candy in the store. It is more than Easter brunches across the land.

Easter is a time to reflect on what God has done to give us a way to have a relationship with Him. It is time to reflect on the fact that, at a specific time in history, Jesus, God’s son, went to the cross to die an excruciating death, the purpose for which was to pay the penalty for our sins and to give us a way to have a relationship with God and Jesus.

I found these words on-line this morning:

“Today, Christians look back on these events (the death and resurrection of Jesus) not to relive the grief, sadness and morbidity, but to renew our commitment to living on a higher plane, the one Jesus challenged us to live on.

“We recognize the cross as a symbol of God’s love, but historically it was an instrument of torture devised by the Greeks and Romans to prolong the death of those deemed guilty of crimes against the state. “Since Jesus was guilty of no such thing, the cross had to have a higher meaning — one that could hold the hope of humanity.

“Jesus shared its meaning when he said: ‘This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: So that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.’ (John 3:16-17—The Message Bible).

“To this point, the Reverend Billy Graham once commented: ‘God proved His love on the Cross. When Christ hung and bled and died, it was God saying to the world, ‘I love you.’

“Today, the cross is still a symbol of God’s forgiveness. The penalty of our countless sins against God — all kinds of sins — is death … eternal death. As Jesus hung on the cross, our debt to God was being satisfied. The cross was God’s way of picking up our tab. It was His way of saying: ‘I forgive you.’ The cross was a bridge to God’s forgiveness, and we have been invited to freely walk across it.”

Reflecting on this reality morning, the words of one of my favorite hymns come back to me:

Trying to fathom the distance
Looking out ‘cross the canyon carved by my hands
God is gracious
Sin would still separate us
Were it not for the bridge His grace has made us
His love will carry me

The cross that cost my Lord His life
Has given me mine
There’s a bridge to cross the great divide
There’s a cross to bridge the great divide

Good words, well-used:

“God provides a bridge across the great divide. God provides a cross to bridge the great divide.”

On this Easter morning, I hope you will go beyond the trappings of another holiday on the calendar and reflect on the true meaning of the day.

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 the most experienced and credible reporters in Washington, D.C., Dan Balz, who writes for the Washington Post, put it this way in the hours after release of the long-awaited report from special counsel Robert Mueller:

“The Trump presidency long has been an exercise in normalizing extraordinary behavior, with President Trump repeatedly stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate conduct by the nation’s chief executive. The puts into high relief the degree to which President Trump has violated the norms.

“The principal focus of the special counsel’s investigation was on questions of criminality. But there is more than the issue of what rises to the level of criminal conspiracy or criminal obstruction when judging a president and his administration. These are questions that go to the heart of what is acceptable or normal or advisable in a democracy. On that basis, the Mueller report provides a damning portrait of the president and those around him for actions taken during the 2016 campaign and while in office.

“The 448-page document is replete with evidence of repeated lying by public officials and others (some of whom have been charged for that conduct), of the president urging not to tell the truth, of the president seeking to shut down the investigation, of a Trump campaign hoping to benefit politically from Russian hacking and leaks of information damaging to its opponent, of a White House in chaos and operating under

“It shows a White House where officials sometimes — but not always — resisted the president’s more nefarious orders and concludes that Trump was not able to influence the investigation as much as he wished because advisers declined to carry out some of those orders. It also suggests, despite his many claims to the contrary, that the president felt vulnerable to an investigation. When informed just months after taking office that a special counsel was to be appointed, Trump exclaimed that it would mean “’the end of my presidency.’”

Balz has it just right.

Trump may have escaped criminal charges, at least so far, but there is no way he can escape the Balz’ indictment.

Trump’s presidency is replete with lying, obfuscation and, as Balz puts it, “an exercise in normalizing extraordinary behavior, with President Trump repeatedly stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate conduct by the nation’s chief executive.”

For my part, character matters in a president and Trump has none. If good policy results have occurred on his watch as president, they have been due more to happenstance than solid work by Trump and those who work for him.

Hard to give Congress either because key figures there are appealing to their supposed bases than to the public interest.

Trump was not prepared for the presidency, thinking of the campaign in advance of 2016 as an infomercial for his Trump brand. No wonder he didn’t know what to do or how to conduct himself when he won.

I hope those who run in the 2020 election to unseat Trump will not hew so far left of center that they give aid and comfort to Trump. If they appeal to the wacko left, epitomized by Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats will lose and so will the country.

No one knows if “we” will be able to endure four more years of the buffoon in the Oval Office. Perish the thought.

*****

And this footnote: I continue to be impressed with Attorney General William Barr. For all he criticism from certain Democrats, he knows what it means to be an Executive Branch leader. In his press conference today, he did not rise to the bait cast out by various reporters. He stuck to business rather than criticizing Democrats who have been eager to criticize him. His short answers to questions reminded of the late U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield from Montana. Years ago, he liked to answer long and detailed questions with one word answers. His best was just this word – “nope.” Great tactic.