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.

Some call it shabby “corporate welfare.”

Others call it solid “economic development.”

Never the twain shall meet. And that is too bad for a country that, despite rising far left socialist leaders like Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, still depends on smart capitalism that creates jobs.

In the Wall Street Journal today, deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger wrote this:

“Whatever their tensions with industrial capitalism, American union leaders like George Meany, Lane Kirkland and Leonard Woodcock knew their success depended on the private sector’s success. With the private unions’ decline and the rise of public-sector unions, whose lifeblood is tax revenue, a significant brake on the party’s roll toward socialism disappeared.”

Thus, the rise of socialism.

Both corporate welfare and economic development labels came to the fore last week as Amazon, one of the country’s largest corporations, pulled its plans for a major, new “second headquarters” near New York City.

The company acted after various New York officials raised questions about what they called “corporate welfare.” Which were incentives, including tax abatements, offered to Amazon to entice the company to locate an estimated 25,000 jobs near New York, along with billions of dollars in new investment

The far left cheered the decision to move. Of course, the new jobs and investment went away, too.

As an old economic development manager in Oregon, I thought the incentives would pay off for New York in the form of the new jobs, plus the taxes the new job-holders would pay.

“Are New Yorkers better off after Amazon’s decision to cancel its planned headquarters in the Queens neighborhood of Long Island City?” the Wall Street Journal asked. “It’s a complicated question, weighing the benefits of new high-earning residents against the added strain on local services.”

For me, the “jobs issue” would prevail.

From the day Amazon announced the new headquarters last November, city and state officials drew widespread criticism for offering Amazon $3 billion in tax breaks. The then-newly elected Ocasio-Cortez, the wacko of the far left, lamented the huge giveaway “at a time when our subway is crumbling.”

Ask me if I care what Ocasio-Cortez says or does. I don’t.

She is so far left that what she says is nuts, not to mention based on both inadequate study and naivete, even as she advocates socialism for this country.

Yet, progressive candidates – I hate that word “progressive” because it connotes that those who go by or are given that label somehow have progress in mind, often far from the truth — talking tough about the harms of corporate tax incentives could be setting themselves up for disappointment once elected.

Democrat-run states like Connecticut and New Jersey watch businesses flee punishing corporate and property tax rates.

What these Democrats are finding and will find is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot tarnish the reputation of corporations that provide jobs while lamenting the fact that jobs do not exist – if, in fact, those on the far left ever remember that jobs hang in the balance.

If was still managing economic development programs in Oregon, I would:

• Be willing to consider granting various incentives to companies which are trying to save or expand the number of jobs they provide.
• Part of the consideration would not just revolve around the tired slogan – corporate welfare – it would be a sharp, cogent analysis of the pros and cons of the helping the private sector save or create jobs. And, by pros, I mean estimating the effect of the new taxes the new job-holders would pay – a fact, and an important one, often overlooked by those on the far left.
• And, if incentives made sense, I would expect companies to sign a contract committing to provide the jobs they promise, or, if they cannot make good on the job-creating pledge, to give up the tax or other incentives they might have received at the front end.

Back to the deal involving Amazon. Too bad, I say, for New York as the far left prevailed over reason.

Amazon has options. It will take its jobs and investment elsewhere.

I know it won’t happen, but why not consider Oregon? Such a “second headquarters” location would mean employees could easily travel between “headquarters one” in Seattle and “headquarters two” in the Portland area.

Bring on the new jobs.

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.

An article under the headline – “I’m not the grammar police” – caught my attention the other day because it dealt with what, for me, has been a key proposition over my years in journalism and lobbying.

It is this: Good writing is one key to good thinking. No guarantee. Just one key.

I relayed my emphasis on writing to many applicants I was interviewing over the years in the state agencies I helped manage or in the lobbying and public relations firm I co-founded where I spent 25 years before retirement.

For me, there are several keys to good writing, as follows:

• Develop your own style. Don’t try to copy someone else.
• Find the best words to make your point. And that requires just a bit of focus.
• Understand that more words don’t necessarily make better writing. Strive to limit the number of words you use, but….
• Also understand that good writing has a lilt and sense of rhythm to it, not just the paucity of words.
• Strive to use active verbs, which can bring writing come alive.
• Practice the art of what I call the “spring transition” – which means that the end of one paragraph springs to the next. Let me provide an example, which I am making:  Governor Kate Brown won plaudits for her effort to find middle ground on various issues at the Capitol.  Call it an attempt at bi-partisanship. Then, on to the next paragraph:  Bi-partisan efforts also marked the work of Senator Mark Hass as he tried to forge a compromise on tax policy in the Senate Revenue Committee.

Back to the “I am not the grammar police” article.

“To be sure,” the writer said, “there are certain standards that persist by consensus and more or less inarguably because they quietly, invisibly support clarity. Subjects and verbs should agree in number, for instance. Yet, there are many more shades of gray in ‘good English.’

“What’s left is more important than so-called good English: Effective English. English that clearly, strongly and unambiguously — unless you have a penchant for ambiguity — conveys from writers’ brains through their typing fingers and onward to the imaginations of their readers what it is that writers are attempting to communicate.”

To that, I say kudos. Good grammar makes sense especially if bad grammar contributes to bad writing.

But when all is said and done, keep striving for good writing because, among other things, it often illustrates good thinking.

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.

Last weekend, we were treated to another example of golf’s most egregious issue – slow play.

The final group in the pro tour Genesis Open treated us to a five-and-one-half hour round. One reason was the wind was up, making it difficult to hit the fairway, pick a club from the fairway, and read a green.

But, still – five-and-one-half hours to play 18 holes?

I say no.

The most egregious violator was the eventual winner, J.B. Holmes, who has made a slow play a mark of distinction – well, not a distinction, but that’s how he describes it in a story from my on-line edition of Global Golf Post.

From the Post:

“Holmes, now being mocked as the ‘human rain delay’ by many on social media, has earned himself enemies in the past, particularly last year when he took more than four minutes to play his second shot on the 72^nd hole at the Farmers Insurance Open.

“This time, in the Genesis Open, the outrage stemmed from him taking more than a minute to line up putts, and using green reading books and plum-bobbing even if he had a glorified tap-in remaining.”

It was so egregious that the usually conservative CBS on-course reporter, Peter Kostis, took Holmes to task.

“’The problem is not that he is going through this routine,’ Kostis said. ‘The problem is that he waited until his playing partners were done before he started it.’”

Holmes, only one of the slow play practitioners, is unapologeti

The kind of money pros are playing for and the places up-for-grabs in the FedEx points race prompt him to say things like, “There’s times when I am probably too slow, but it is what it is.”

As I said, Holmes is only one of the slow play artists. Another is Bryson DeChambeau who takes the “science of golf” to new, lengthy levels before playing any shot. And, I still remember a pro from old days, Glenn Day, who now plays on the senior tour. He earned the nickname “All Day.”

The basic problem is that slow play works against golf becoming more popular, a quest that occupies many of the golf organizations such as the United States Golf Association.

As amateurs watch pro golfers, many tend to mimic the style as they take five hours to get through 18 holes — and that reality, at the amateur level, slow play, dissuades many from taking up the game that already could be contended to take too long.

So, what is the answer? Well, I have several.

First, I would penalize pros for slow play. The standard is that it is supposed to take 40 seconds to play a shot. If it takes more, the pro should get a warning the first time, then a one-stroke penalty the second time. That would get the pro’s attention.

Second, the Global Golf Post makes a good point when it says that ShotLink technology, already in place, could eventually be used in pace-of-play enforcement. “We already are able to tell exactly where each player is on the course down to the inch,” the Post says. “We can accurately trace their shots in real time. Would it be possible for this technology to identify when a player has arrived at his or her ball and it’s his or her turn to hit?” Then, use that information to impose penalties for slow play.

Third, why not try what the European Tour did in 2018 during its appropriately called “Shot Clock Masters.”

Here’s the way the system was described:

“The 2018 Shot Clock Masters in Austria will be the first tournament in professional golf to use a shot clock on every shot as part of the European Tour’s bid to combat slow play.

“In accordance with this official policy, each player in the 120-man field had 50 seconds for the first player in a group to play any given shot and 40 seconds for subsequent players. Players will incur a one-shot penalty for each bad time incurred and these will be shown as a red card against their name on the leaderboard.

“Each player will have the right to call two ‘time-outs’ during a round which will permit them twice the usually allotted time to play the shot.”

As I watched the 2018 tournament on TV, each group was followed by a golf cart with a shot clock riding on it for everyone – including players and the golf crowd – to see. I remember one case where a player took 41 seconds to play a shot and got a one-stroke penalty for being over the limit.

Back to the Global Golf Post, which put it this way:

“Playing the game within a reasonable time frame should be part of the challenge of golf. What would happen if a quarterback didn’t have a play clock to beat? Taking a minute-and-a-half to dissect the defense would not only be antagonizing, it would defeat a fundamental skill of quickly analyzing the situation.”

The same could be said about golf, but, frankly, the only way to prompt appropriate levels of speed would be to impose violations for show play.

The violations would be meted out first in pro tournaments, then get down to amateur play where the penalty could be a fine, tough, I know to impose, when persons have played money to play.

That’s the way it is at the course I play in La Quinta, California, The Palms. The stated goal is to play 18 holes in three hours and 50 minutes, though the advice from the pros often is to aim at three hours and 30 minutes.

That time happens without difficulty.

Not tough if you focus on golf and don’t mimic slow play artists on the pro golf tours.

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.

Okay, I am taking a respite – at least for a day — from blogging about such weighty topics as the fate of capitalism in the face of left wing wackiness or whether Trump’s wall constitutes an emergency.

I had a new experience a couple weekends ago – attending a polo match here in La Quinta, California.

It was something I always wanted to do, but, having done it once, I have no real desire to attend again. Still, for the first time, it was an interesting experience.

Some perceptions:

• I am not a horse guy, but the polo horses are beautiful and impressive animals.
• The riders are good, too, with an ability to lead their mount to go from an easy trot to a substantial gallop in what looks to be only a few feet. Then, they often stop on a dime
• I wondered whether guys on horses with long wooden mallets, which they swing hard, would create safety issues for riders and horses. No. This polo rule governs play:

“Line of the Ball: Once hit, the ball creates an imaginary line as it travels, and the player or players on the line have the right of way.”

• I have not read all of the polo match rules, but I suspect they don’t measure up to golf rules, though the match is still played outdoors and not in a pavilion or stadium, which means the need for more rules.
• I talked about a polo match with a friend of mine here who has been to more than one event. I asked about safety and other issues. He made this telling comment: “At all costs, riders are worried about their horses, taking great care of them.”
• No wonder, the horses are beautiful animals which, as I understand it, have retired from racing, but have moved on to polo. Yhey are “thoroughbreds” and look like it.

And this final question.

Why do many women wear big hats at events involving horses? I have seen this during television coverage of the Kentucky Derby and I saw it at the polo match, as well.

No problem with that style, but I have no answer to the probing question of why.

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 follow my blog yesterday – it commented on the lurching left of socialism in this country – than to re-print a column by Peggy Noonan that is running in the Wall Street Journal.

In her typical vibrant and readable writing style, Noonan contends that Republicans now face a duty, especially in the face of loony left, to save capitalism.

But, not just for saving sake. For, Noonan says, participating in capitalism in the right way, which means those who are “rich” taking at least some responsibility, without a government mandate, for those who are less fortunate.

Such actions would be a great way to counter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other wackos on the left.

So, here’s Noonan.

***********

Let’s think about the broader, less immediate meaning of our political era.

This is how I read it and have read it for some time:

The Democratic Party is going hard left. There will be stops and starts but it’s the general trajectory and will be for the foreseeable future. Pew Research sees the party lurching to the left since 2009; Gallup says the percentage of Democrats calling themselves liberal has jumped 23 points since 2000. But you don’t need polls. More than 70 Democrats in the House, and a dozen in the Senate, have signed on to the Green New Deal, an extreme-to-the-point-of-absurdist plan that is yet serious: Its authors have staked out what they want in terms of environmental and economic policy, will try to win half or a quarter of it, and on victory will declare themselves to have been moderate all along. The next day they will continue to push for everything. The party’s presidential hopefuls propose to do away with private medical insurance and abolish ICE. Three years ago Hillary Clinton would have called this extreme; today it is her party’s emerging consensus.

The academy and our mass entertainment culture are entities of the left and will continue to push in that direction. Millennials, the biggest voting-age bloc in America, are to the left of the generations before them. Moderates are aging out. The progressives are young and will give their lives to politics: It’s all they’ve ever known. It is a mistake to dismiss their leaders as goofballs who’ll soon fall off the stage. They may or may not, but those who support and surround them are serious ideologues who mean to own the future.

None of this feels like a passing phase. It feels like the outline of a great political struggle that will be fought over the next 10 years or more.

Two thoughts, in the broadest possible strokes, on how we got here:

The American establishment had to come to look very, very bad. Two long unwon wars destroyed the GOP’s reputation for sobriety in foreign affairs, and the 2008 crash cratered its reputation for economic probity. Both disasters gave those inclined to turn from the status quo inspiration and arguments. Culturally, 2008 was especially resonant: The government bailed out its buddies and threw no one in jail, and the capitalists failed to defend the system that made them rich. They dummied up, hunkered down and waited for it to pass.

Americans have long sort of accepted a kind of deal regarding leadership by various elites and establishments. The agreement was that if the elites more or less play by the rules, protect the integrity of the system, and care about the people, they can have their mansions. But when you begin to perceive that the great and mighty are not necessarily on your side, when they show no particular sense of responsibility to their fellow citizens, all bets are off. The compact is broken: They no longer get to have their mansions. They no longer get to be “the rich.”

For most of the 20th century the poor in America didn’t hate the rich for their mansions; they wanted a mansion and thought they could get one if things turned their way. When you think the system’s rigged, your attitude changes.

On the right the same wars, the same crash, and a different aspect. In the great issue of the 2016 campaign it became unmistakably clear that the GOP elite did not care in the least how the working class experienced immigration. The party already worried too much about border security—that’s the lesson the elites took from Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, according to their famous autopsy. They appeared to look after their own needs, their own reputations: We’re not racist like people who worry about the border! They were, as I’ve written, the protected, who looked down on those with rougher lives. The unprotected noticed, and began to sunder their relationship with establishments and elites.

Donald Trump came of that sundering. He was the perfect insult thrown in the establishment’s face. You’re such losers we’re hiring a reality-TV star to take your place. He’ll be better than you.

Conservatives regularly attend symposia to discuss the future of conservatism. Republicans in Washington stumble around trying to figure what to stand for beyond capitalizing on whatever zany thing some socialist said today.

But isn’t their historical purpose clear? Their job—now and in the coming decade—is, in a supple, clever and concerted way, to save the free-market system from those who would dismantle it. It is to preserve and defend the capitalism that made America a great thing in the world and that, for all its flaws and inequities, created and spread stupendous wealth. The natural job of conservatives is to conserve, in this case that great system.

I’ll go whole hog here. We need a cleaned-up capitalism, not a weary, sighing, acceptance-of-man’s-fallen-nature capitalism. Republicans and conservatives need a more capacious sense of what is needed in America now, including what their own voters need. The party needs a tax-and-spending reality that takes into account an understandable and prevalent mood of great need. They need to be moderate, peaceable and tactful on social issues, but firm, too. This is where the left really is insane: As the earnest, dimwitted governor of Virginia thoughtfully pointed out, they do allow the full-term baby to be born, then make it comfortable as they debate whether it should be allowed to take its first breath or quietly expire on the table. A party that can’t stand up against that doesn’t deserve to exist.

All this must be done with a sense of how Americans on the ground are seeing things. What they see all around them cultural catastrophe—drugs, the decline of faith, the splintering of all norms by which they’d lived, schools that don’t teach and that leave their kids with a generalized anxiety. They want more help to deal with this. If you said, “We’re going to have a national program to help our boys become good men,” they would be for it, they would cheer. If you said, “We’re going to get serious and apply brains and money to what we all know is a mental-health crisis in America,” they wouldn’t care about the cost—and they’d be right not to care. They think as a people we’ve changed, our character has changed, and this dims our future. Make things better on the ground now and we’ll figure out the rest later.

These are not quaint nostalgists pining for the past, they are realists looking at ruin. They know some future crisis will test whether we can hold together as a nation. Whatever holds us together now must be undergirded, expanded.

Much will depend on how the Republican Party handles this epic era, because the Democrats are not only going left, they will do it badly. They will lurch, they will be spurred by anger and abstractions, they will be destructive. They really would kill the goose that laid the golden egg, because they feel no loyalty to it.

Republicans, save that goose. Change yourselves and save capitalism.

You are thinking, “My goodness, that’s what FDR said he was doing!”

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.

Forgive me, but I cannot get out of my head that the weird, over-the-top proposals to install socialism in this country arise because those making them are jealous of the so-called “rich” who have worked hard to produce their “wealth.”

None other than the mercurial new U.S. representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, wants America to become socialist so she and those for whom she says she speaks can receive government hand-outs.  She prefers government largesse over hard work.

Washington Post columnist Mark Thiessen wrote about this in a piece that ran Friday under this headline:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accidentally exposes the left’s big lie

Here is how Thiessen started his piece:

“Cortez’s now infamous talking points on the Green New Deal are the most unintentionally honest explanation of the neo-socialism now gripping the Democratic Party. Too honest, apparently. After her office sent the “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)” to NPR, the Post and other news organizations, and posted a similar version on her congressional website, they were met with withering criticism — prompting Ocasio-Cortez to furiously backtrack, seeking to disown and discredit documents her office had produced, posted and distributed.

“Sorry, you don’t get to do that. Ocasio-Cortez told us what is really behind her Green New Deal. Now she, and the Democrats who endorsed her plan, have to live with it.”

Incredibly, Ocasio-Cortez has advocated for “getting rid of farting cows and airplanes,” upgrading or replacing “every building in America,” replacing “every combustible-engine vehicle,” and providing “economic security” for people “unwilling to work.”

There you have it – the left wing plan for America, unveiled by Ocasio-Cortez.

But Thiessen writes that “taxing the rich won’t come close to covering the costs of the Green New Deal, which includes a bunch of socialist policies that have nothing to do with climate change.”

Further, the Post reports that Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl has calculated the 10-year costs of proposals from the left. The results are stunning: $32 trillion for a single-payer health care plan; $6.8 trillion for a government jobs guarantee; $2 trillion for education, medical leave, job training and retirement security; and between $5 trillion and $40 trillion to fund universal basic income to support those who are “unwilling” to work. Grand total? Between $46 and $81 trillion.

Based on Reidl’s research, Thiessen contends the estimates “cover the price tag only before we even get to the energy and environmental policies in the Green New Deal. It is virtually impossible to accurately calculate the cost of replacing every vehicle that uses a combustion engine; bringing high-speed rail to every corner of America; upgrading or replacing every building in America; and replacing all fossil fuel energy with alternative energy sources. We’re talking hundreds of trillions of dollars. It would be virtually impossible to pay for it. And Americans don’t want to anyway.”

Now, with Ocasio-Cortez several things are true.

• She is nuts. She doesn’t know much about real government or real public policy issues. Her inexperience doesn’t dissuade her from proposing nearly anything.
• She talks – or releases information on-line – before she thinks…if she thinks at all.
• She conducts herself on the left like Trump does on the right. You cannot believe all she says as she relies on partial truths, out-of-context numbers, or outright lies.
• She reveals the true dimensions of the socialist proposals advocated by such presidential aspirants as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

And, this conclusion by Thiessen in his Washington Post piece: “With her FAQ release, Ocasio-Cortez has inadvertently exposed the neo-socialist lie that you can get something for nothing. The Democratic Party’s embrace of that lie is going to get President Trump re-elected.”

For me, re-electing Trump would be bad, so here’s hoping that both Occasion-Cortez, Trump and their like on the far right and far left implode on the way to 2020.

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 a person who follows golf rules, there was another fascinating situation last Sunday in the final round of the Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament.

After suspensions of play earlier in the day due to bad weather, the two players in the final group – Phil Mickelson and Paul Casey – were trying to finish before dark.

And it was dark, though, as always, TV screens tended to show more light than there was.

On the 16^th green, Mickelson finished the hole, as Casey exercised his right not to finish, with a four or five-foot put for par left on the hole. He wanted to wait until Monday when, among other things, the greens would have been manicured to remove blemishes after a long day of play on Sunday.

The first impression, left by announcers in the TV booth, was that both players – Mickelson and Casey – would have to decide together whether to continue

Mickelson appeared to want to continue. Casey did not.

Both were within their rights according to golf rules.

But, the fact is that, in stroke play, one player can continue and one player can stop. They key phrase is, “in stroke play.”

If one player – in this case, Mickelson – decided to keep playing, he could do so, but then Casey, who had decided to stop playing, would have had to follow Mickelson in order to keep serving as his scorekeeping marker.

It turned out that both players stopped, leaving two holes to finish on the next day.

All of this was pointed out to me on Monday as I played at The Palms golf course here in La Quinta. One of the other members there is Tom Loss, a long-time golf rules official who, besides serving as a referee in many national pro and amateur tournaments, worked for TV as a rules adviser.

He has told me that he was often in a TV truck on a tournament site, providing advice to commentators, off-camera and off-mike.

As we talked on this Monday, he came across as irritated that, whomever was providing rules advice during the CBS telecast, did not summarize the accurate rules application. In match play, players agree together on whether to continue playing or not. In stroke play, the decision does not have to be made together.

A final note is that I have known Tom for many years. Back more than 20 years ago, he served as a rules official in the first of 11 national tournaments in which my son, Eric, has played. I was on the bag for Eric in that tournament in Connecticut and I remember, on the first hole, that Tom waved me off to stand farther to the side as Eric played his second shot into the par 4.

I add quickly that, as a caddy, I knew enough not stand behind a player during a swing. I thought I was in an appropriate position, but, nonetheless, I quickly moved farther away at Tom’s direction.

I don’t know why this situation sticks in my mind to this day.  A friend said that this 20-year-old memory, which I had described to him, struck him like pro golfers who remember shots they hit to win tournaments long in the past.  They remember the club they hit, how far it was to the hole, and whether they hit a fade or a draw.

But, if nothing else for me, my memory of Tom’s role long ago indicates that I value him as a rules official.  And, in this case involving Mickelson and Casey, he is right.

This was confirmed to me earlier when another friend, Mike Bennett, said something similar happened to him when he and others were playing in a college golf tournament some years ago. He said one player in a group could continue; others in a group could stand down. And that’s what happened in his tournament.

A footnote to all of this is that, on Monday, Mickelson won the tournament by playing the final two holes in one under par and Casey finished solo second when he birdied #18. His pro-am team also won that side of the tournament.

Good result, I say, for both Mickelson and Casey. And Mickelson struck a classy note when, on Monday, he complimented Casey on the decision not continue on Sunday night. It was a solid and understandable decision Mickelson said, one that worked for both players.

Based on this situation, I learned something more about golf rules, which shows, among other things, that I don’t have much else to do in retirement. But golf rules situation are fun, just as they are difficult to decipher, even under the new golf rules (they were effective as of January 1) developed by the United States Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient.

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.

Going back to the confirmation process for William Barr as attorney general of the United States, I found two irksome developments in what occurred a few weeks ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Both relate, no doubt, to my own background as an Oregon state agency manager and, while I am in no way comparing my service to that of Barr, Democrat senators in Congress went out of their way to be irksome.

Here are the two developments:

MAKING THE MUELLER REPORT PUBLIC: The special counsel regulations call for investigator Robert Mueller to provide the attorney general with a “confidential report,” explaining who he did and did not decide to prosecute, and for the attorney general (who, after the Senate votes today, will be Barr) to notify Congress of the investigation’s end and of any steps Mueller wanted to take that were vetoed.

Further, according to the Washington Post, the regulations give Barr some latitude to release information publicly, though did note at his confirmation hearing that, under normal circumstances, prosecutors would not reveal information about those they chose not to charge.

Irking some lawmakers, he declined to guarantee he would release Mueller’s findings in full, though he has vowed to be as transparent as possible.

That solid answer prompted Democrats to rail against Barr, suggesting that he would try to keep the Mueller report confidential.

But, all Barr said was that he would adhere to the regulations governing the Mueller report, including the specification that parts of it would be confidential.

THE MERITS OF STAFF ADVICE: The second irksome incident also involved Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who came across, to me, as holier-than-thou.

They asked Barr whether he would automatically follow advice from the Department of Justice Ethics Office if staff there said it would be best for Barr as AG to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe.

In clear terms, Barr said no. He said he would consider the advice, then make his own decision – which is exactly what he should do as attorney general.

Staff members don’t run the agency; the AG does.

In these two irksome developments, it struck me that Democrats were trying to find any excuse to oppose Barr who, based on his long record of public and private service, is imminently qualified to be AG.

The Senate Democrat questions and positions also indicate that most of them know next to nothing about managing large bureaucracies.  They want to score political points, not allow Executive Branch managers to manage.

Fortunately, the Senate is is led by qualified leaders, not “searching for something” Democrats.  That’s why Barr will be confirmed later today.

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 a former reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon – not to mention serving as press secretary for an Oregon congressman and an Oregon governor – I have had a huge dose of questions about how the media covers Donald Trump, or, perhaps, should cover him.

Of course, it’s challenge, given Trump’s unpredictable, if not impulsive, behavior. And his continuing diversion to his Twitter account makes it even more difficult for reporters and editors to separate the wheat from the chaff.

At some points along the way of the last two years of Trump, I have advocated that the media just ignore the Trump tweets. Are they really “news?” I don’t think so.

They are just Trump’s attempt to divert the media from covering real news in the Trump Administration and Congress. If he calls Senator Elizabeth Warren a name via tweet, as he did again yesterday, then that becomes a news story.

Sorry. It shouldn’t be.

What would make more sense is for reporters and editors to focus, or example, on the attempt in Congress to broker a way to avoid another government shutdown. Many of the real journalists have done just that as the vote approaches on a compromise to avoid another disaster.

In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, journalist and author, Jill Abramson, asked a basic question: “Will the media ever figure out how to cover Trump? “

She adds this paragraph:

“The news media’s collective shock that Donald Trump won in 2016 was evidence of how out of touch most reporters were with the less affluent, less educated, rural parts of the country, where white voter rage galvanized into votes that made him the 45th president. In the days after the election, there was anguished self-examination in many newsrooms and vows to cover the parts of the United States that had been mistakenly overlooked.

“But more than two years later, the same question bedevils journalism: Can our tribe cover their tribe?”

Now, it is true that, shortly after publication of her piece in the Wall Street Journal, Abramson’s reputation was sullied a bit based on a charge that she had plagiarized portions of her book.

No way for me to know whether the charge is true, but true or not, Abramson has what I consider to be good advice for the media.

“There is little evidence,” she writes, “that reporters have fulfilled their pledge to report on and reflect the interests and values of the people who voted for Trump. There have been some good dispatches from the heartland, but too often what is published amounts to the proverbial ‘toe touch in Appalachia.’”

Abramson said was “powerfully moved by a recent article in the New Yorker about journalism by LBJ biographer Robert Caro.” He described how he couldn’t really understand President Lyndon B. Johnson’s native Texas Hill Country until he and his wife actually moved there from New York City for three years. The locals had a derisive name for the reporters who parachuted in and out: “Portable journalists,” they called them.

Quoting Abramson further: “The rhythm of the Internet has made spending a week reporting a story a rare luxury. But our cocooning on the liberal coasts has intensified because of other factors in the past decade. One is the virtual disappearance of local newspapers, their business models irrevocably broken by the disappearance of print advertising.

“With the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal, the most influential national papers reflect the values of the cities where they are headquartered, New York and Washington.

“Reporters who have contracts with MSNBC and CNN sometimes appear on panels, wedged between Democratic partisans and prosecutors who have already judged the president guilty of grave crimes. They blend and create an appearance of bias. It’s hard for viewers to keep them straight. Twitter is just an open invitation for politically inflamed hyperbole.”

One way out of the reactive cycle, Abramson says, is to report the story from the places where the pro-Trump and Trump-curious live, to cover the facts and truths of their lives.

Such real reporting – call it journalism – would help to understand the push and pull of America, not just the horse race in Washington, D.C. On some days, I wish I go back to being a reporter, knowing what I know now, in order to perform “real journalism.”

In the years since I functioned as a reporter, the news business has changed – dramatically. Social media now pervades everything, making the old “news cycle” about seconds long, instead of daily.

To be sure, that reality changes the news reporting business, but I also think it – the pervasive effect of social media – calls even more strongly for real journalists to return to their roots. Make tough decisions about constitutes “news” and cover real stories, not, again, the “horse race.”

We’d all be better for such an effort.

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 question in the headline is one I often ask as we watch the federal government continue to flounder in the Nation’s Capitol. And the floundering is due to immature juveniles on both sides, led by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who want to win for their base, the public be damned.

I also continue to wonder whether there is any real political space between the left wing nutcases and right wing fanatics. For examples of both, look no farther than Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the left and TV commentator Sean Hannity on the right — though I hate to use because, (a) he is not elected, and (b) all he wants is personal fame and controversy.

All the types of Cortez and Hannity want to do is advocate extreme positions and flog anyone else who advocates for meaningful compromise.

I continue to look for politicians who will avoid either left or right extremes and endeavor to find the middle for the benefit of all Americans.

Part of this requires new perspectives on the part of Americans who vote. They should not support either high-sounding phrases from the left or low-sounding diatribes from the right. They should support reasonable efforts to find the smart middle.

At the moment, campaigning on the middle doesn’t work. Voters appears to want candidates to veer left or right, not advocate for compromise, so that’s one reason why I am looking for a centrist, even an independent who will work to capture and hearts and minds of Americans who want better for their country.

Here’s an example of what the left thinks and says, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal:

“Senator Kamala Harris of California reiterated at a nationally televised town hall last month that her co-sponsorship of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-For-All legislation would mean the abolition of private insurance. Five leading candidates also endorsed a Green New Deal that imposes a top-down revolution of American society to mitigate the impact of climate change.

“But, when you look at polls breaking down the actual Democratic electorate, you’ll find limited support for such socialist-minded schemes. Broaden out to the overall electorate, and it’s easy to see how Democrats could be giving President Donald Trump a lifeline to a second term despite his widespread unpopularity.

“’We are on an out-of-control roller-coaster going 100 miles per hour, and we have no functioning brake,’ said one liberal Democratic strategist who is alarmed by the rising tide of socialism within the party. ‘No one is leading, and that void could not be more clear.’”

So, when centrist Democrat Howard Schultz says he might run for president in 2020, many Democrats head the other way and suggest that all a centrist candidate like Schultz would do is shift votes to the right for Trump.

Meanwhile, the far right is no better than the far left.

The right, perhaps motivated by the so-called “alt-right” popularized by former Trump staff member, Steve Bannon, calls for “rights of individuals vs. the power of the government.”

People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.

If not taken to an extreme, the notion of limited government is attractive to me, especially given the left’s predilection for more and more government.

But, when less government becomes a calling card for those advocating against anything from the middle, it becomes only far right fanaticism.

I say a pox on both sides. Neither the far left or the far right has the public interest at heart. All each wants to do is appeal to their bases so they can either remain in charge or vault from minority to majority.

Who suffers?

All of us do, at least those of us who hope politics where the goal is good decisions, not just popular decisions to extremists.

In other words, what about the centrists who operate just a bit right or left? They often see perspectives from both sides and are comfortable finding the middle.

And this footnote:  As I post this blog, the question circulating around Washington, D.C. is whether a compromise to avoid another government shutdown has a chance to get Trump’s vote.  Without knowing all the exact details, I salute the compromise.  It is exactly what compromise should be about.  No one wins everything.  No one loses everything.  You give and you get.  We’ll see in a few days whether Trump agrees.