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 used to be that the term “whopper” often referred to the size of a fish caught at the end of a pole.

My Dad used that phrase – “look, I’ve caught another whopper” – too many times for me to remember each one.

Today, however, the term often refers to big lies told as a matter of course by President Donald Trump. It also could refer to the huge exaggerations told by most of those running for president on the Democrat side. Those are lies, too. They are true “whoppers!”

But, back to Trump.

He has made lying an art form as if he believes – and he probably does – that the bigger the lie the more it will take root, especially in social media platforms operated by those on the right, if not the far right. And, when lies take root, they almost become fact.

However, it would not be accurate to put Trump on the right – the conservative side – in any discussion of politics. He would not appear on the political spectrum as he burnishes his own “Trump Brand” through his term as the so-called “leader of the free world.”

The same can be said of those on the far left, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. There is no way to say that they have the best interests of the country at heart as they pivot to and fro in their campaigns, though I guess it would be fair to add that, at least so far, Ocasio-Cortez is not running for president.

Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake performed a service recently by listing the top 10 whoppers told by Trump.

The trouble, of course, is that a lot of Americans believe him.

Here is a summary of the list:

10. Exercise shortens your life.

The claim: Washington Post reporters Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish reported that Trump “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

9. Global warming is a Chinese hoax.

The claim: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

8. His inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama’s.

The claim: “I made a speech. I looked out. The field was — it looked like a million, a million and a half people.’’ White House press secretary Sean Spicer assured that it was the “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in-person and around the globe.”

7. Wind farms cause cancer.

The claim: “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 per cent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay?”

6. There were 3 million to 5 million illegal votes in 2016, and none were for Trump.

The claim: “Of those votes cast, none of ’em come to me. None of ’em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of ’em come to me.”

5. His father was born in Germany.

The claim: “My father is German — was German. Born in a very wonderful place in Germany, so I have a great feeling for Germany.” [It was not his father, but his grandfather.]

4. Pershing executed Muslim terrorists with blood-tipped bullets.

The claim: He said of U.S. General John J. Pershing duringthe U.S. Philippine War: “They were having terrorism problems, just like we do. And he caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the 50 terrorists, and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pigs’ blood . . . And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years, there wasn’t a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn’t a problem.” It was a clear reference to Muslims, and the idea that the pig’s blood would prevent them from going to heaven.

3. Foul play in Antonin Scalia’s death.

The claim: Within days of the Supreme Court justice’s 2016 death, Trump told conservative talker Michael Savage, “I’m hearing it’s a big topic. It’s a horrible topic but they’re saying they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.” He added: “I can’t give you an answer. It’s just starting to come out now.”

2. His stage-rusher was tied to ISIS.

The claim: In a tweet, Trump said of a man who rushed the stage at a rally in Ohio and was apprehended, “USSS [Secret Service] did an excellent job stopping the maniac running to the stage. He has ties to ISIS. Should be in jail.” He attached a video detailing the man’s alleged ties to ISIS.

1. It might not be his voice on the “Access Hollywood” tape.

The claim: After Trump apologized for his “locker room talk” on that tape, he privately floated the idea that it wasn’t actually him at all, according to the New York Times. “We don’t think that was my voice,” he reportedly told a GOP senator he was imploring to investigate.

For me, one of the biggest whoppers, if not the biggest, is Trump’s claim that his goal to “make America great again.”

No, his goal is to continue broadcasting an infomercial for his brand and the country be damned.

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.

There is no better way to say this than the headline to this blog. Let me repeat it. The Wall Street Journal agrees with me and I agree with the Journal.

But, enough of the attempt to aggrandize myself from my position in the cheap seats out West.

The agreement to which I refer relates to an issue that continues to roil Congress – whether the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation should be released in full to Congress, or, in fact, would it be legal for that to occur.

As I have written previously, I am glad that someone of the stature of William Barr is serving as this country’s Attorney General. He is making and will make a solid decision on the issue of release – in full (not likely, given various legal constraints), in part (perhaps) or in redacted form (very likely).

Here is the summary of what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said:

“Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Good.

Now, to verify my agreement with the Wall Street Journal, not to mention my notion that certain Members of Congress are in this fray with their own political ends in mind (and, not, I add, for me to favor protecting President Donald Trump whom I wish was not in office), I re-print the full editorial, which appeared under this headline:

Trolling the Mueller Report

Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a cover-up

Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a cover-up.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

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.

Colleagues in my old firm, CFM Strategic Communications, have engaged in an interesting – and friendly – argument over the last few days. I have been part of the argument.

It is this:

Do we have to bow and scrape to the so-called “AP Style?”

The initials AP refer to the Associated Press. My wording of the question illustrates my bias.

My answer is no.

For some of my colleagues, the answer is yes.

Many regular persons don’t even know that something called the “AP Style” exists. Well, it does.

But it was intended for those who write for newspapers, including me back in the day when I was a reporter for The Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon. The rationale was to bring consistency to reporting.

According to AP style, for instance, a reporter should always spell out the word per cent – and it would be two words, not one. And, in what I believe was an example of the over-zealous style folks, you would always have two spaces between sentences, not one.

Though, as heinous as this may be, AP style recently has reverted to one space, not two.

Does all of this matter? Of course the answer is no.

But, to my old colleagues — emphasis on “old,” — adherence to AP Style is still viewed as critical, both for journalists and for public relations professionals, the latter of which is a service provided by my old firm.

This also may be an illustration that I have too much time on my hands in retirement to focus on this. But, in the spirit of over-the-top, sometimes irrelevant detail, here are a few of my style ingredients, not AP Style,with a rationale for each.

Always use hyphens when hyphens contribute to readability.

Consider this example — the word “bipartisan.” A casual reader, one not addicted to political issues as I am, might read the word this way – bip-artisan.

Therefore, I always write the word like this – bi-partisan.

Or, consider words that begin with “re,” such as re-examine.  They read much better with a hyphen.

Always use as many commas as possible because favoring the pause by a comma contributes to readability.

Consider this sentence.

“But, when I talked with the Bank yesterday, I understood that staff there had mailed documents to me.”

I wrote that sentence the other day and I think it reads better with the commas, even though AP Style may argue against it. Without commas, the sentence would read like this – But when I talked with the Bank yesterday I understood that staff there had mailed documents to me.

To repeat, with the commas – and the pauses they denote – the sentence reads better.

Don’t use abbreviations when full words are more readable.

AP Style calls for using such abbreviations as Sen. for Senator and Rep. for Representative. I decline to do so. Just spell out the full word.

In the same way, AP Style calls for this – Representative (my style) Greg Walden, R-Ore. I depart from AP Style, always using the full word, Oregon

Develop your own style for using capital letters.

I say your own style because AP Style is nothing but confusing on this point. For instance, as you write about the Oregon Legislature, does the word “legislature” deserve a capital L or not? I say yes. AP Style is not clear.

At least one of the AP Style pieces of advice is also accurate from the standpoint of English language style. It is this: Dave Fiskum, director of the Department of Pet Peeves, is making full and complete decisions about what is a pet peeve and what is not.

In this sentence, correct style calls for the word “director” to carry a small D. If, however, the title “director” preceded Fiskum’s name, it would be a capital D.

Now, if you have managed to read this far, you no doubt will agree with me that all of this does not matter in the real world. No it doesn’t. But it is fun for me to ruminate on these issues and to argue with my colleagues about them.

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 was driving up the road from Salem to Portland the other day, I was listening to one my favorite discs – “The Very Best of Neil Diamond.”

It was a good way to pass the time on a drive that, most of the time, is marked by too many cars and frequent traffic jams.

So, here are Thoughts on a few Diamond songs.

Forever in Blue Jeans

This is the first song on the disc and the lyrics always remind me of former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber. He made popular the attire of wearing blue jeans with suit jackets.

It was something, then and now, that my wife would not allow me to wear. But, for Kitzhaber, during much of his time in office, both as Senate President and Governor, he set a style that was mimicked by many others.

I’m a Believer

Neil Diamond first sang this song, then it was made popular by the Monkeys, of all strange developments in the music business.

I can never hear the words without thinking of my wife, the light of my life, when I hear, “then I saw her face and I’m a believer and I could never leave her.”

Pretty Amazing Grace

I don’t know the exact derivation of this song — in the sense of Mr. Diamond’s religious convictions — but there must be as religious connotation to it. The fact is that, for Christians, there is “pretty amazing grace.”

Our personal relationship with God depends, not on our own performance or earnings, but rather that on what Jesus Christ has done for us. That’s “pretty amazing grace!”

Holly Holy

If you listen to the lyrics, not to mention the rising crescendo of voice and instruments, it is hard not to park the car and, privately, move or dance along with the music.  In my case, no one would want to see that.  Holly Holy is a work with a spiritual focus, reportedly one of Mr. Diamonds’ favorite songs. The spiritual tone is indicated by these words:

Call the sun in the dead of the night
And the sun’s gonna rise in the sky
Touch a man who can’t walk upright
And that lame man, he’s gonna fly
And I fly
And I fly

Sing on, Mr. Diamond.

America

I cannot hear the lyrics to this great song without thinking of the contrast to today’s America, where, under President Donald Trump, all immigrants are considered evil and corrupt.

Now, of course, there are corrupt individuals in any cohort, but the fact is that immigrants over the years have contributed much to our country. They wanted to “come to America” and our country, overall, is better for their arrival.

There is more that could be written about Diamond songs, but let me just say this – “The Very Best of Neil Diamond” will remain in my car disc player.

Listening is a great way to pass the time, as well as think various big thoughts spurred by great music sung by a great song writer.

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 before, so sorry for the repetition. But, it is fair and accurate to point out that Attorney General William Barr is acting with skill and experience as he handles the follow-on issues related to completion of the Mueller report.

Here is a paragraph from the Wall Street Journal that makes my point:

“In his letter (to Congress), Barr said the report (the Mueller report) was nearly 400 pages, excluding tables and appendices, and that officials had no plans to submit the report to the White House for review of any confidential or privileged information. He said material related to intelligence sources, ongoing investigations, grand-jury matters and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes will be redacted from any version made public.”

Kudos to him.

Note the phrase, “material related to intelligence sources, ongoing investigations, grand-jury matters and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes will be redacted from any version made public.”

Nor should it, I add. An appropriately redacted report makes all the sense in the world – and that’s what Barr intends to prepare and release.

Many Democrats, including most of those who appear to be running to oppose Donald Trump in 2020, want the full Mueller report to be made public. They don’t care that laws and genuine legal traditions (such as protecting grand-jury deliberations) argue against full release.

I write none of this to defend Trump or protect him from a full review of his abhorrent conduct in office. He deserves to pay for his incredible lack of character and veracity.

Still, I remain confident in Barr’s ability to deal with all of these issues and to fend off the incessant, beyond-legal demands from the left.

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.

You can tell I have too much time on my hands because I have enough of it – time, that is — to write a blog on this subject.

But, the golf phrases listed below have been on my mind lately and, as you will see, some come from real golfers and real TV golf commentators — and a few come from me. After all, I, too, am a golf expert, at least in my own mind.

• If he would have hit it harder, it would have gone farther.

I remember the time I heard this phrase uttered by a commentator. Stop for a moment and think about it. Stands to reason, doesn’t it! Someone got paid big bucks to say the words. So why not pay me big bucks to utter such obvious notions?

• Callaway pays Mickelson and many others to play their golf clubs and golf balls; I pay Callaway to do the same.

I am the author of these semi-famous words. Why, given how much I have done for Callaway, doesn’t the company invest in me? Who knows?

• Better than most! What do those three words really mean?

As we have just passed the annual Players golf tournament in Ponte Vedra, Florida, we have been reminded again and again about those three words.

They were uttered by golf commentator and former player Gary Koch several years ago as he watched Tiger Woods hole a very long putt on the iconic 17^th hole at the TPC Sawgrass course.

As the putt trailed toward the hole, Koch said the words, “Better than most.”

Think about it. What do those words really mean and are they worthy of such high status? Perhaps not, though I add that I like Koch as a TV commentator. He has an understated way of calling a golf tournament, adding to the action without distracting from it.

• Jack Nicklaus, Dustin Johnson and I all play fades.

This is a quote from me – and, surprisingly, it is true.  I have have no particular ability to hit a draw on command.  However, when it comes to Nicklaus and Johnson, they both hit their fades farther than I do, which, I guess, is not surprising, given my advanced age.  Plus, the longer I play the shorter the distance.

• He has a lot of green to work with.

If you watch golf on TV, you are likely to hear this phrase multiple times. A pro player hits a shot long and there is a bit of distance between where his golf ball lies and the pin. So, the commentator intones, “he has a lot of green to work with.”

Where did the phrase originate? Work with? What does that mean? Who knows?

• I’ve just got to stay patient.

You don’t have to listen and watch much golf on TV before you hear this phrase. I’d love for someone to define the word patience as we hear it repeatedly.

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.

Pretty far!

Off the political spectrum, in fact!

Political columnist, Peggy Noonan, made this point in a piece she wrote recently for the Wall Street Journal.

“A generation after President Bill Clinton declared that the ‘era of big government is over, Democrats,’ Democrats are engaged in an intra-party fight over how aggressively to expand the government’s reach into the lives of everyday people.

“Free college, government-backed health care and subsidy checks for newborns, all considered politically untenable ideas during the 2016 presidential campaign, are among the proposals being floated by top candidates in the crowded 2020 presidential primary field.

“The advocates for a larger government role are among the party’s savviest social-media users, including Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which has provided a megaphone for their views.

“The wing of the party that advocates more incremental change is resisting what it sees as moving too far, and too fast, toward a bigger government role—something that already is being labeled ‘socialism’ by the Republican opponent-in-waiting, President Donald Trump.”

As far left as these proposals are, no one can top Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is a major author of some of the notions.

And, in the interest of fairness, far right folks, including President Donald Trump — if he belongs on the right and no on his own weird stance as nowhere other this bloated ego – are no better than the lefties. Neither side has the country’s best interests are heart.

The push to the left is coming in part from a vocal group of freshman lawmakers, including Ocasio-Cortez, who ran in Democrat strongholds vowing to shake up the party hierarchy and push for change on such issues as climate and health care.

Not only that. Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding about public policy that, in effect, makes her like Donald Trump. Neither knows what they’re doing when it comes to making decisions about government, either in terms of an appropriate role or the details of individual policies.

Ocasio-Cortez made this abundantly clear when she applauded Amazon’s decision not to move forward on a second headquarters location in the New York area. Good, she said, and now it would be possible to spend the $3 billion that would be saved on other left-learning programs.

Of course, almost everyone else knew that there was not $3 billion to be spent. That was the amount Amazon was scheduled to receive then gave up, in tax incentives. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t know about the easy-to-see distinction.

Or, as a governor I worked for a number of years ago would have said: “She doesn’t know beans from buckshot.”

When I queried a friend – he is an admitted and avowed liberal — about Ocasio-Cortez, he said she did not represent the true Democrat party. Well, if not, then she is getting a lot of publicity as one apparent leader of the left.

Former Vice President Joe Biden told would-be donors recently that he often faces criticism from the “new left,” but claimed he has the “most progressive record” of anyone trying to get into the 2020 presidential election field.

One of his would-be rivals, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, has called the policies outlined in the Green New Deal—a climate change platform advocated by Ocasio-Cortez—as “aspirations.”

Noonan says what she calls “an ideological debate” could re-define the Democrat Party after more than two decades of dominance by supporters of the Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Noonan continues: “The Democrat fight is being fueled by pent-up frustration from a new generation of leaders, whose political outlooks were largely formed in the aftermaths of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the economic meltdown at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency.

“It is being animated by a liberal activist base that has grown independent of the party establishment. The ultimate arbiter in the struggle will be a Democrat primary electorate that reflects the party’s emerging power centers: Millennials and minorities.”

Still, looming over the intra-party debate is the question of how best to beat Trump. Former Delaware Governor Jack Markell, an ally of Biden and several governors considering entering the race, said “the only way that Trump can win is if the D nominee is too far to the left.”

Asked his definition of “too far left,” Markell said it is “the giving-everything-away-for-free lane.”

So, the Ds favor increasing government largesse? Yes. They have no problem spending other people’s money.

I hope some kind of centrist – Republican, Democrat, third-party, I don’t care – emerges who can appeal to voters opposed to either far left or far right ideas that are designed more to attract certain kinds of voters than to produce good solutions.

That’s the only way Trump can lose his re-election bid, as well as the only way Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk can be relegated to where they belong, which is on the sidelines.

Give me a person with character, knowledge, experience and credibility in the Oval Office.

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 headline trumpets a key question as we head toward the 2020 presidential election. Are Donald Trump for the Republicans, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the Democrats standard-bearers for both parties.

I hope not.

For they deserve each other, even if some on both sides dispute the notion that they are standard-bearers because, if nothing else, standard-bearers have to have standards. Neither does.

First, each is nuts, without the first idea of what it means to govern with skill and diplomacy – from their posts on the far right for Trump and the far left for Ocasio-Cortez.

Can Trump be placed on any political spectrum, including the far right? Perhaps not, and, in this country, real conservatives would no doubt disavow Trump as illustrative of someone who wears the mantle of Republican. He defies explanation. Frankly, so does Ocasio-Cortez for Democrats on the left.

Second, solid, upstanding character is not an issue for either Trump or Ocasio-Cortez. They don’t have much, if any.

Third, lying comes naturally to each, so much so that they believe, often rightly in this day of social media “news,” that lying covers up a host of stupid, near-illegal actions.

Fourth, each craves media publicity. There is no higher calling thatn to get your names in newspapers or on-air. And, reporters and editors succumb to their entreaties, which is not good news for Americans who would benefit from a focus on “real news,” not Trump tweets or Ocasio-Cortez media blitzes.

A letter writer to the Wall Street Journal got it right this other day with this:

“In ‘Socialism? Yes, Be Afraid’ in his Wonder Land column on March 14, Daniel Henninger compares Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ideas to Jack Handey’s ‘Deep Thoughts’ bits on Saturday Night Live.

“Right comedy show, wrong character. Ocasio-Cortez is more like Gilda Radner’s Roseanne Roseannadanna or Emily Litella, always making an internally logical, if very irreverent argument, but one based on an intellectually wacky or unfounded premise (see Radner’s classic ‘Saving Soviet Jewelry’ as an example).

“The problem is no one else in the Democrat Party has either the common sense or courage of Radner’s skit partners, who leaned over to whisper in her ear, mid-rant, that her premise was nuts, the earnestness of her presentation notwithstanding. Gilda always gave us the sheepish look with a chagrined ‘Never mind!’ Ocasio-Cortez, instead, is too self-enchanted to ever admit her arguments might need a re-think.”

Then, consider Trump.

He never expected to be president, seeming to believe that campaigning was just an infomercial for his Trump brand. He figured it would be more publicity for him and nothing else mattered, because he values publicity over anything.

Trouble is, he won. And we all are worse for his victory. He wasn’t prepared for the White House and, in the words of a solid, experienced military veteran who served him, for a time, as head of the U.S. Department of State, he displayed no ability to prepare for anything, much less read anything about the presidency or its current challenges.

Now, I have a friend on the left who makes light of my comment that Ocasio-Cortez could be a standard-bearer for the Ds. He says she is just an after-thought, and to illustrate his point, he holds two fingers together closely to indicate that she is thin and doesn’t matter.

I beg to differ. She gets more air-time and news-space that any other Democrat even as erstwhile D candidates for president in 2020 adopt her costly ideas – free medical care for everyone, free college for everyone, reparations for “the slavery issue,” tear down all buildings and build new ones according to some kind of ill-defined “new green deal.”

No talk about the price for such ideas. And, of course, price doesn’t matter because, for many Democrats, they enjoy spending other people’s money.

So, I believe we can do better than either Trump or Ocasio-Cortez as we look for standard-bearers in both parties. Or, if we find no solid examples in today’s excuse for politics, we could look for a third-party candidate or candidates who can lead us to the smart middle on issues facing this country – all the while demonstrating high character and standards.

Trump and Ocasio-Cortez? No.

Better standard-bearers? Yes.

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 the other day how comforting it was to me to have a seasoned legal pro, William Barr, sitting in the U.S. Attorney General’s chair.

I made that assertion minutes after Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his long-awaited report to the AG.

I could write that sentence again, with confidence, after watching a few days of the to’ing and fro-ing over the Mueller report and the AG’s summary of it.

Many Democrats feel Barr should be required to release the full report even if it violates certain provisions of the order creating the Special Counsel in the first place, or even if it violates long-accepted legal practice, such as not releasing transcripts of grand jury proceedings in order not to incriminate those who might have testified, or even if it jeopardizes ongoing investigations.

None of this matters to many Democrats who believe they, and only they, have the smarts to analyze the full report.

And, if they want to use the report to tarnish President Donald Trump, well, he deserves it given his reprehensible conduct in office.

And, of course, President Donald Trump, to his discredit, continues to do what the Washington Post’s James Hohmann describes in his Daily 202 Column:

“Even when a story is great for him, Trump still has a penchant for over-hyping just how great.

“He’s a billionaire, yet he inflates his wealth. Trump Tower is a tall building, yet he sprinkles in extra floors. He’s tall but overstates his height. Trump got elected president by winning the Electoral College, but, insists, without evidence, that he also would have won the popular vote if millions of undocumented immigrants hadn’t cast ballots illegally.

“When the Islamic State was battered, he said it was eradicated. There are many more examples.”

Back to AG Barr.  He reiterated on Sunday that his “goal and intent” is to release as much of the report as possible. Barr said he’s asked Mueller to help identify information in his report that cannot be released publicly because it’s related to grand jury deliberations or other ongoing investigations that have been referred to other offices.

“As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies,” Barr wrote.

It is important to add that a clause in the document creating the Special Counsel allows the AG to release the full report, with, of course, redactions.

I suspect Barr will do that. But, again, I am very glad he is in the top chair making that and other decisions about what comes next.

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.

When it comes to seeing and absorbing information, I believe there are three kinds of people in this world:

1. Those who prefer words
2. Those who prefer graphics and pictures
3. Those who prefer charts and graphs

Of course, there are folks who share portions of all of the above.

For me, I prefer words. And, for me, words matter.

Let me provide a few examples.

THE WORD “NEGATIVE:” My concern about this word arrives when, after I have had a blood test at a doctor’s office, I get a call reporting the results. The person on the other end of the phone says results were “negative.”

Say what?

When I hear that word, I often respond, “oh no, now what do I do?”

But, of course, when conveyed in such a manner, the word negative is positive. Get my drift. Nothing is wrong with the test results.

Would be better, I submit, for the response from the doctor’s office, to be something like, “there is nothing wrong based on the test.”

THE WORD “TRANSPARENT:” I cite this because, while I like the word based on its definition, I never know what it means for sure when it is uttered by a political figure.

Usually, it means what the politician wants it to mean.

The dictionary definition of transparent is a bit complicated, as follows:

• Having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen
• Admitting the passage of light through interstices (whatever that last word means)
• So sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous; easily seen through, recognized, or detected

It is possible to see how this word – transparent – could illustrate the importance of open and “transparent” government. But it has come to mean what politicians want it to mean, which is to support their claim that they believe in open government.

Except the reverse is often true for many of them. They want us to know what they want us to know, not the full depth and scope of information about government issues.

So, when I hear the word “transparent” used by politicians, I am skeptical.

THE WORD “LOGISTICS”: As I drove north on I-5 earlier this weekend, I did not just notice a lot of huge trucks; I also noticed that, in many cases, adds on the sides of trucks indicated they were involved in “logistics.”

Who knows what that word means? Trucks used to be called vehicles that hauled stuff. Later, the trucks were called “transportation vehicles.” Today, many carry the moniker “logistics.”

My friends at “dictionary.com” – I consult them regularly – define logistics as this: “The planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of a business or other operation.”

So, I guess the word is appropriate. Just not one I would know how to use in regular communication about the number of big trucks on highways.