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 why this posts contains the headline appearing above.

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Gay wrote a piece this morning with a lead that said this: “This is not a column about the Mueller report.”

Instead, Gay wrote about Tiger Woods’ victory as the Masters Golf Tournament last week.

Well, by contrast, this post is about the Mueller report (thus the headline) – the one, in case you don’t know, prepared by special counsel Robert Mueller, which is due to be released in redacted form later this morning.

The reality is that no needs to hear from me – again on this issue, though:

• I wish Donald Trump was not president, given how he has trashed the office, lowering it below what anyone could have expected, so I am not advocating that any reading of the Mueller report should protect Trump.
• I hope Trump will be run out of office, or that someone would emerge in the 2020 campaign who would be able to appeal to the middle in America, which, I think, continues to exist, though it has been engulfed by the far left and far right.

My view of the Mueller report issue is that it tends to revolve around distinctions between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. If you were worked for the latter, you do not work for for Congress. You work were for the current federal administration and, of course, for the people in the country.

We had another example of this tension late yesterday when U.S. Representative Jerold Nadler went nuts because Attorney General William Barr had the temerity to hold a press conference, then release the Mueller report to Congress.

Here’s what Nadler told the Wall Street Journal:

“Even before the report’s release, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (Democrat from New York) expressed misgivings about Barr’s process for sharing the document with Congress and the public.

“’Why is the AG holding a press conference tomorrow morning to go over the Mueller report?’” Nadler asked on Twitter, saying that Barr already had stated that it wouldn’t be in the public’s interest for him to attempt to summarize the full report.

“Nadler said the Justice Department had informed his office that it wouldn’t receive the report until around 11 a.m. or 12 noon on Thursday—after Barr’s news conference. ‘This is wrong,’ Nadler tweeted.”

If I was talking to him, I’d suggest that Nadler just wait for the report. He’ll get it soon enough – later today, in fact. He can then read the report, rail against its redactions, and hold hearings on the process where he can ridicule Barr. Clearly, Nadler doesn’t like Barr, but I say, “so what.”

Barr is acting like a competent Executive Branch official who doesn’t report to Congress, but rather relates to Congress.

That’s exactly how he should conduct himself. I, for one, am glad Barr is in the top Department of Justice chair.

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.

Remember the old phrase, “can you walk and chew gum at the same time?”

We have a new version of the phrase now:

Can you play the Masters golf tournament and chew gum at the same time?\

Based on two examples, the answer is yes.

Both Tiger Woods, who won his fifth green jacket Sunday, and Phil Mickelson, who played well over four rounds at the country’s favorite golf tournament, were seen chewing gum throughout their rounds.

Incredibly, it appears there are various benefits to chewing gum. One of my friends pointed this out to me yesterday, so, like many folks do these days, I went on-line to find answers.

Here’s what I found, according to the “Nutritional Neuroscience” magazine:

“What we know thus far is that chewing gum makes you much more alert but has rather variable effects on paying attention. The benefits of gum chewing are particularly impressive if you’re sleepy. If you’re trying to pay close attention to specific things happening in your environment, such as being vigilant about baseballs being thrown at you, chewing caffeinated gum might be more beneficial than non-caffeinated gum.

“For some people, gum chewing helps them to multi-task. Someone in your office likely does this while trying to talk on the phone while playing video games and drinking coffee at their desk.

“How could gum chewing achieve these benefits? Certainly, the act of chewing is rewarding and can be arousing because it implies that nutrients are on their way to the brain. Also, stimulation of the trigeminal nerve that innervates the jaw muscles is likely arousing. Finally, many gums offer a small dose of sugar that can be arousing by reducing hunger pangs. [Woods even said this the other day when asked why he chews gum on the course.] Some people find that gum chewing helps fight the urge to eat or consume other arousing chemicals, such as nicotine or caffeine.”

One of my questions is why anyone would study this subject in the first place. Who knows?

But, forgive me, I have to stop writing this blog in order to go out and guy some gum on my way to the golf course.

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.

If you are a golf fan, one of the best tournaments to watch all year is the Masters at Augusta National, the iconic course in Georgia.

That’s true for me – both because I am a golf fan, as well as because I love the experience of seeing Masters golf amid the azaleas and other colorful flowers in Georgia, not to mention on one of the greatest golf courses in the world.

Sunday, I was glued to the TV for hours!

Watching the Masters again brought back great memories of 2015. My daughter and I attended the tournament that year, being there for the practice round and par 3 tournament on Wednesday, and the first round on Thursday.

Then we hurried back West to watch the last two rounds on TV.

A great experience for father and daughter! A memory for a lifetime!

With all that is being written and will be written about this Masters, why do I feel a need to add my views to the mix?

Good question. Perhaps one reason is that I have nothing else to do in retirement, plus at the bottom of this post, you’ll see a few perceptions that are unlikely to be written about elsewhere.

Any casual reader will know that a tournament result occurred Sunday that benefits golf in many ways. First and foremosts, in what is being called one of the greatest comebacks in all of sports, Tiger Woods won his fifth green jacket, the emblem of the winner.

It was 22 years after his first win at the Masters and 14 years after his fourth win. The achievement also sparked talk about whether Woods ever could reach 18 major tournament wins, which would equal Jack Nicklaus’ record. This was Woods’ 15^th major, and occurred after a variety of physical and emotional difficulties that raised questions about whether Woods would ever play golf again, much less win.

The benefits? Apart from the personal benefits for Woods, whose family was on hand to witness his feat, the gate was up for Sunday with Woods in the mix for all 18 holes. Results are not in yet, but count on the TV viewing rates to be up, as well.

After the great results of the tournament, here are a few other perceptions, which, indicate, again, that I have too much time on my hands in retirement:

• One of my favorite golfers, Phil Mickelson, adopted a new tactic on the course – chewing gum, presumably to provide just a little diversion from the tough playing task ahead.
• Woods, too, was shown chewing gum, which, in his post-tournament press conference, he attributed to the need to do something on the course other than want to eat. Okay?
• And, in what for me represents another reason to like Australia golfer and former Masters champion Adam Scott, he wore pleated golf pants this year. In conversations with the two arbiters of clothing style in my life – wife, Nancy, and daughter, Lissy – I tried to suggest that, because of Scott, I could now wear pleated plants, too.

They would have none of it, believing pleated pants only verify one’s old age.

My response? Yes, I am old. So pleated pants here I come.

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.

If you are a golf fan, one of the best tournaments to watch all year is the Masters at Augusta National, the iconic course in Georgia.

That’s true for me – both because I am a golf fan, as well as because I love the experience of seeing Masters golf amid the azaleas and other colorful flowers in Georgia, not to mention on one of the greatest golf courses in the world.

Sunday, I was glued to the TV for hours!

Watching the Masters again brought back great memories of 2015. My daughter and I attended the tournament that year, being there for the practice round and par 3 tournament on Wednesday, and the first round on Thursday.

Then we hurried back West to watch the last two rounds on TV.

A great experience for father and daughter! A memory for a lifetime!

With all that is being written and will be written about this Masters, why do I feel a need to add my views to the mix?

Good question. Perhaps one reason is that I have nothing else to do in retirement, plus at the bottom of this post, you’ll see a few perceptions that are unlikely to be written about elsewhere.

Any casual reader will know that a tournament result occurred Sunday that benefits golf in many ways. First and foremosts, in what is being called one of the greatest comebacks in all of sports, Tiger Woods won his fifth green jacket, the emblem of the winner.

It was 22 years after his first win at the Masters and 14 years after his fourth win. The achievement also sparked talk about whether Woods ever could reach 18 major tournament wins, which would equal Jack Nicklaus’ record. This was Woods’ 15^th major, and occurred after a variety of physical and emotional difficulties that raised questions about whether Woods would ever play golf again, much less win.

The benefits? Apart from the personal benefits for Woods, whose family was on hand to witness his feat, the gate was up for Sunday with Woods in the mix for all 18 holes. Results are not in yet, but count on the TV viewing rates to be up, as well.

After the great results of the tournament, here are a few other perceptions, which, indicate, again, that I have too much time on my hands in retirement:

• One of my favorite golfers, Phil Mickelson, adopted a new tactic on the course – chewing gum, presumably to provide just a little diversion from the tough playing task ahead.
• Woods, too, was shown chewing gum, which, in his post-tournament press conference, he attributed to the need to do something on the course other than want to eat. Okay?
• And, in what for me represents another reason to like Australia golfer and former Masters champion Adam Scott, he wore pleated golf pants this year. In conversations with the two clothing arbiters of style in my life – wife, Nancy, and daughter, Lissy – I tried to suggest that, because of Scott, I could not wear pleated plants, too.

They would have none of it, believing pleated pants only verify one’s old age.

My response? Yes, I am old. So pleated pants here I come.

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.

No doubt critics of this post would say that I have been spending too much in the sun in Southern California.

But, in the sun and high temperatures here, I have been wondering why elected officials are so eager to propose new taxes. It seems to me they should spend time, first and foremost, to exact a “return on investment” principle from current government programs.

If those government programs fail to perform, they should be gone, thus making room within current spending for programs that produce results.

We had several more indications this week that many elected officials turn first to new taxes:

• U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, has announced that he wants to tax capital gains as regular income, meaning rates up to 37 per cent and he also wants to tax unrealized gains, perhaps decades before the investor sells.
• Governor Kate Brown testified in favor of a new set of tobacco taxes, including a first-in-the-nation tax on vaping and e-cigarettes, all to fund her budget proposal for Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Oregonians.
• Several state senators emerged in Salem with a long-awaited proposal to tax businesses just under one-half of 1 per cent of their gross receipts over $1 million to help fund the costs of K-12 education.

Whatever you think about these proposals – and, for what it’s worth, from my position in the cheap seats, I could support some of them — what troubles me is that the first instinct on the part of many political leaders is to tell taxpayers they need new money.

My view is that such proposals would have more standing if they were preceded by efforts to get the best from current spending.

Let me provide just one example from my past as lobbyist in Oregon. It is a small one, but yet an important one, helping to illustrate my point.

In the 2011 legislative session, my firm’s client, ChristieCare (now called Youth Villages and still a client of the firm I co-founded), proposed legislation – Senate Bill 964 – that rested on a simple premise: The rate of foster care was too high in Oregon and, if we – the state and its contracted entities — provided intensive services to children and their families, there was a way to reduce foster care and keep children in their own homes.

SB 964 contained two very important principles identified by phrases that, at the time, I said should become regular requirements in all state human services contracts – DEFINABLE CLIENT OUTCOMES through PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING.

In other words, under Senate Bill 964, contractors would be expected to produce specific client outcomes, thus earning retention of their contracts by their performance, or, on the other hand, losing their contracts if they failed to perform up to expectations.

It was incredible to me when I learned that this was the first performance-based social services contract language in Oregon law.

Through diligent effort – and over the objections of the agency involved, the Department of Human Services – we passed SB 964 and the governor signed it into law.

And, what happened?

Nothing.

Legislators soon lost track of the requirement and contracts with private sector entities continued without regard to whether they performed or not.

This still stands as a major loss for the State of Oregon, not to mention an example of a law that remains on the books, but is not enforced.

This may be a relatively small issue, though foster care in Oregon remains today a system in search of a solution. But, beyond the subject area, what this indicates to me is that there is more interest in new tades than there is in imposing a “return on investment” standard for existing state government programs.

Too bad, 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.

I have written about this subject on several occasions, but at least I will feel better if I do so again.

And I do so before heading off for the day to watch the Masters’ Golf Tournament on TV, my favorite tournament of the year.

Without trying to pass myself off as any kind of legal expert, I am glad that a person of solid legal stature – Attorney General William Barr – holds that position. He knows what he is doing to strike the right balance between full, word-for-word release of the Mueller report – an action that would either be illegal or ill-advised on several fronts — and releasing as much of the report as possible.

To me, it is clear that Barr is not setting out to shield President Donald Trump from scrutiny, for, surely, Trump deserves as much scrutiny as possible. Barr cannot protect the president, nor, I think, would he set out to do so.

What Barr is not acceding to are demands from many Democrats that he violate the law or genuine privacy interests by releasing the full report.

Expect an appropriately redacted report in by mid-April.

What many Democrats don’t recognize – or at least don’t want to recognize – is that, by law, grand jury material is secret and, in general, can be released only with the permission of a judge and then only under specific circumstances.

So far, no judge has been asked to allow release of the grand jury proceedings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. He apparently relied, at least in part, on those proceedings as he prepared a final report.

According to the Wall Street Journal, few courts have grappled with the question of whether Congress is entitled to grand jury material and, if so, under what circumstances, meaning that there is little precedent for how courts would interpret such a subpoena, if one comes, as is likely, from a House committee.

Just earlier this week, as Barr appeared before a committee in Congress to describe the budget for the Department of Justice (which he leads), members reiterated desire for the full report.  Barr was there for another purpose — to describe the budget for his department, but, to no one’s surprise, the hearing didn’t deal with the budget…it dealt with the release of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said last week, in a case unrelated to the Mueller report, that judges have no inherent authority to release grand jury evidence to individuals seeking the information.

An earlier opinion allowed Congress to obtain such information only in the context of an impeachment proceeding, which may mean that House Democrats move soon choose to file impeachment charges against Trump, which he may deserve in spades, but which may be related more to seeing a full, un-redcated Mueller report than to move forward on impeachment articles.

Beyond grand jury proceedings, there are at least two other bases for redacting parts of the Mueller report. One is that persons may have been identified in the report who were never charged with any offenses, so releasing their names would subject those individuals to invasions of privacy.

A second reason is that it is possible parts of the report may have national security implications, making release against the best interests of the country.

Barr understands these issues very well and, further, said he would make his own reasoned decisions – not influenced by Trump and not influenced by left-of-center Democrats.

I, for one, am glad a person of Barr’s credentials is in this hot seat.

Here are a couple reasons why.

First, I still remember the occasion when Barr was up for confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Various Democrats on the committee wanted Barr to pledge that, when he received advice from those who work for him, including in the internal ethics office of the Department of Justice, he would follow it.

He said, no, he would make his own decisions after taking stock of staff recommendations, which is exactly what any top executive should do.

Second, Barr has functioned so far as an Executive Branch official. He doesn’t report to Congress; he relates to Congress. He makes his own decisions and then stands up to be counted as being responsible for those decisions.

Based on my own experience as an Oregon state government high-level manager – without comparing myself in any way to Barr – that’s exactly how a high-level official should act.

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 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) scores again this week with a renewed commitment to civil discourse in this country, or at least among WSJ readers, including me.

The news came yesterday in a memo from Wall Street Journal executive editor Matt Murray under the headline “elevating our discourse.”

Now, various of my friends who operate from the left of center – and I add that “there is nothing wrong with that “– would say that the Wall Street Journal takes a conservative viewpoint on everything, so bests not to rely on that news source.  I disagree.  The WSJ practices the art of journalism with skill and precision, always denoting the difference between reporting and opinion.

I add that, beyond the WSJ, I also read the Washington Post every day with its left-of-center perspective in an attempt to take more than one side of an issue and decide for myself.  And the Posts also practices solid journalism.

Better the WSJ and the Post than to focus on the pervasive effects of social media these days, which exists, not to provide information and context, but rather to inflame readers.

Here’s the way Matt Murray explained a new WSJ focus:

“Our readers like active engagement with the news. We have heard from you that you strongly desire a place to read a variety of audience perspectives, that you want posts that are thoughtful and, also, that you would like an environment in which you feel comfortable to share your own insights.

“In interviews and surveys of our membership and the broader public, people say they would like to contribute to audience conversations on our web site but that they have, over time, become turned off by the growing toxicity that is rampant all over the Internet.

“We want our web-site to lead the way in pushing for elevated discourse. This week, we are introducing initial steps that will pave the way for audience conversations that more of you may be interested in reading and perhaps in contributing to. We will have more steps and new features in coming months. We welcome your feedback and you can write me at the below email address.

“News thrives when it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public, and amid conversations among readers themselves.”

Notice a key phrase from Murray: “News thrives where it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public.”

Kudos to him for, not just a great turn of phrase, but a solid commitment, as well.  I wish the commitment also would extend to citizens and those who represent them, but that appears to be far from reality and both sides choose to disagree disagreeably.

Here are five key tenets of the WSJ commitment:

1. To keep discussions free of objectionable content streaming in from outside the WSJ community, the audience conversation feature will now be an exclusive benefit for our members.
2. To give both our members and WSJ editors the ability to focus on the day’s top stories, we will be limiting the number of open articles and closing discussions after 48 hours. You will be able to find articles with open conversations in a featured box on the bottom of all articles on our site.
3. The SJ has improved what it calls its “moderation process” to better enforce existing policies. It also has hired additional journalists to engage with the “Audience Conversation” to enhance the free expression of ideas and foster civility in our community.
4. To facilitate thoughtful and meaningful discourse, a WSJ reporter will initiate the discussion with a question. This will help keep comments on point and give members the ability to interact with our journalists.
5. The WSJ says it is committed to transparency and has created a system to notify members immediately when comments are approved or rejected.

This is a great addition to a meaningful commitment: Improving civil discourse in this country. Does it solve a problem all on its own? Of course not.

But it hews toward what should be a commitment in this country: Enabling citizens to engage with the media to increase understanding on both sides.

Too often, various sides of  contentious issues in this country spend time, figuratively, yelling on street corners to avow that they and only they have the right answers to every  question. Citizens who engage in this kind of behavior probably follow the instincts of those who represent us – including President Donald Trump and Members of Congress.

They disagree on many issues and spend time ridiculing the other side rather than seeking middle ground, which is where the best solutions lie any.

Again, does the WSJ initiative create, on its own, civil discourse.?  No, but it clearly is a step in the right direction.

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.

If we needed another verification that President Donald Trump is a serial cheater, we got one recently when a story in the Wall Street Journal(WSJ) announced this, though, of course, any smart person like me would not need an announcement:

He cheats at golf, too.

So, call Trump “Pele,” a reference most young people would not recognize. For a quick explanation see below.

According to the WSJ, “A longtime sportswriter claims in a new book that President Trump frequently cheats at golf and likened Trump’s habit to a way of ‘showing you that he’s better than you.’

“He cheats like a mafia accountant. He cheats crazy. He cheats whether you’re watching or not. He cheats whether you like it or not.”

The reporter who write the story, Rick Reilly, recounted several vignettes from his new book “Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump.” He said Trump cheats, even against professional players.

Reilly goes on.

“Trump’s caddies also allegedly know to accommodate his penchant. He kicks the ball out of the rough so many times, the caddies call him ‘Pele,’ after the famous soccer player that persons my age remember. (Pele, who remains a towering figure in the sport of soccer, retired from competitive play in the 1970s.)

So, Trump’s “Pele” in golf exemplifies his approach to life and “public service,” though that term should never be applied to Trump.

Cheating is a way of life for him.

He lies about his age. He lies about his grades in college. He lies about Korea. He lies about China. He lies about size of his properties – and other stuff, if you get my drift. He lies about his tax returns.

He lies about all of his supposed achievements as it appears he is vying for another four years in office, perish the thought.

So, the moral of this story: Don’t believe anything Trump says.

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.

By the actions and antics of many of those either running for or holding elective office – not to mention voters themselves – it appears that character is not much of a political consideration these days.

I listened the other day to a presentation by Walter Schaub, who held the position of director of the Federal Ethics Office for a number of years until his retirement a year or so ago. He served with distinction and skill for his time in the ethics office.

One of his main comments was this:

In the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal, many elected officials, as well as voters, displayed a renewed commitment to ethical conduct and behavior, especially in relation to the exact opposite of the Nixon Administration. Now, however, much of that commitment to ethical behavior and conduct has receded.

Mr. Schaub was right.

Look only so far as President Donald Trump for whom ethical behavior and conduct are not even on his radar scope. He acts in unethical ways in almost all of his dealings, indicating that he was not prepared for the realities of being president – or perhaps was prepared in the sense that serving in the Oval Office strokes his massive ego.

Trump treated the presidential campaign as an infomercial for his Trump brand. And, he has gone about holding the nation’s highest political office in the same way – it’s mostly an infomercial for his economic holdings.

Many members of Congress are no better than Trump.

They appeal to their political bases without much apparent regard for being honest and forthright. If their bases are happy, so be it. If they win election or re-election, so be it. Damn the public interest.

Or, this. While I hate to quote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank because he usually is so far left of center, he was right when he wrote this about Senator Bernie Sanders:

“In politics, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

“Hence, Senator Bernie Sanders’s emergence as the Donald Trump of the left.

“Fundraising and polls show that many Democrats think the best answer to an angry old white guy with crazy hair, New York accent and flair for demagoguery is, well, another angry old white guy with crazy hair, New York accent and flair for demagoguery. It’s not difficult to picture a scenario in which Bernie captures the Democrat presidential nomination with the same formula that worked for Trump with Republicans in 2016.

“On paper, the independent from Vermont doesn’t make sense: Democrats are a party of youth, and he’s 77; they are majority-female, and he’s a man; they represent the emerging multicultural America, and he is white.”

In this and other pieces about Sanders, there is not one word about character. To him, as well as to Trump, character does not matter. Appeal to your base. Utter falsehoods as if they are true. Let the chips fall where they may without regard to ethical behavior or conduct.

Overall, this is true on both the far left and the far right, indicating that the best approach may be to say, as I do, “a pox on both extremes.”

Let’s consider candidates who will gravitate toward the middle or even a third-party candidate who will pledge to do the public’s business when running for office, and then when in office, do it.

It’s time for a change in this country. Neither Trump nor Sanders fit the bill.

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 wrote earlier in this space about this pet peeve:  Certain words frequently readily used in politics have meanings that are at least veiled, if not totally unknown.

One of those words is “transparency.”

It has become a very popular word in political circles these days, but I never know what it really means.

Sure, open government is a good idea, including for voters who need to understand how to understand and rate their government. But open everything? No.

Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel wrote about this concern recently, adding perspective to my unease with “transparency,” even as she related the word to the current kerfuffle between Members of Congress and Attorney General Bill Barr over release, or not, of the Mueller report.

Here are excerpted quotes from her column:

“More important than the practical consequences of going along with the Democrats is the principle of standing firm. ‘Transparency’ is one of those feel-good words that lead to sloppy thinking. Who doesn’t want more government transparency? Most people, when they think about it.

“But, who wants generals posting attack plans online? Who wants President Trump tweeting out the nuclear codes?

“More important, who wants the federal government spreading unfounded or uncorroborated accusations? Grand-jury and special-counsel investigations represent government power at its biggest and scariest. They can compel witnesses to reveal all manner of intimate details—banking records, personal text messages, loan defaults, medical information. The proceedings are kept secret to encourage candor—and candor also results in witnesses with grudges, speculation and even false testimony. Those swept up in probes like Mr. Mueller’s are often private citizens, innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Well said, both in the context of release of the Mueller report, as well in the general issue of the meaning of “transparency.”

As in the cases of the words “progressive” and “democratic,” “transparency” should be defined, not just used as a generalization.