PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Remember, this is one of two departments I direct – and I have absolute freedom to include what I want to include and to ignore what I want to ignore.

How’s that for sounding Trumpian?

Now, on to the quotes.

From Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal: “When candidate Trump first referred to ‘the swamp,’ he was talking about the bog of Beltway lobbyists and ‘establishment’ politicians. But President Trump’s first year in office has revealed that the real swamp is the unchecked power of those who actually run Washington: The two million members of the federal bureaucracy. That civil-servant corps was turbocharged by the Obama administration’s rule-making binge, and it now has more power—and more media enablers—than ever. We live in an administrative state, run by a left-leaning, self-interested governing class that is actively hostile to any president with a deregulatory or reform agenda.

Comment: So, yes, give the Trump Administration its due here. It has moved to undo the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration. One hopes that the goal is not just to undo regulations, but to undo ones that don’t work or that go beyond an appropriate government role. That is a key distinction, one I hope the Trump Administration remembers.

From James Hohmann in the Washington Post: “THE BIG IDEA:  Following President Trump’s tweets can feel like watching a short man drive a Hummer. His fragile ego is always looking to overcompensate. The latest manifestation of that is downright Napoleonic.

“North Korean leader Kim John un said Monday that the United States is ‘within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.’

“Twelve minutes after Fox News highlighted that quote last night, Trump tweeted, ‘Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a nuclear button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his, and my button works!’”

Comment: So, the motive from Trump continues to be the “mine is bigger than yours” claim. Who cares? The nuclear buttons are a source of real concern, worth more than absurd quotes and tweets.

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page: “Trump has genuine accomplishments about which it is appropriate to boast — including tax reform, judicial nominees who are reshaping the federal courts, and a stop to new regulation. Yet even with the economy growing faster, and a tight labor market beginning to bid up wages, Mr. Trump’s job approval remains below 40 per cent in the Real Clear Politics average.

“The paradox results from Mr. Trump’s governing behavior. His attacks on all and sundry have polarized the electorate even more than it was on Election Day in 2016. He retains the support of his most fervent base but he has lost support among many who voted against Hillary Clinton more than they did for him. Those Americans tend to think that a nuclear missile exchange isn’t a laughing matter.”

Comment: Well said. Trump can’t stop talking or tweeting and both compromise consideration of the Administration’s first-year accomplishments.

From Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal:  “My antipathies nicely divided, I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate in the last election. When it was over, I was pleased that Hillary Clinton had lost and depressed that Donald Trump had won—and if that ain’t being riven I don’t know what is. But once Mr. Trump was elected I wished him well. Not that he made it easy to do so. His style was, to put it gently, alien to my notion of a serious leader. Modesty, civility, a sense of measure, regard for the gravity of his office—none of these arrows were in his quiver.

“Very well, I thought, my job, as someone hoping for his country’s success, was to separate Mr. Trump’s personality from his policies. I am, after all, in favor of some of his ideas: holding the other nations in NATO responsible for paying their share of its cost, moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reducing our contribution to the essentially anti-American United Nations, working to clarify the muddle of ObamaCare, reforming the tax system. Separate the personality from the policies: One would think that easy enough to do. Mr. Trump has, by the nature of his rebarbative personality, made that a difficult, if not impossible, task.”

Comment: A solid goal to separate personality from politics? Yes. But perhaps impossible – and Trump makes it so.

From Ordie Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University in a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:  “Though there are surely wonderful Norwegians, the government in Oslo calls to mind the Barry Switzer line: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

Comment: As a person of Norwegian heritage, I noted that in his Oval Office distribute, Trump said he would welcome more Norwegians to immigrate. Yet, the quote from the Wall Street Journal indicates a truth: Norwegians have benefitted from their geographic position – and surely, as they used to say on the Seinfeld TV show, “there’s nothing wrong with that.”

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 long been an advocate for finding middle ground in politics, the area between Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left where the best policy solutions lie.

The idea of middle ground is a basic tenet of politics, which has been defined as “the art of compromise.”

But compromise has become a dirty word. And, even worse, Democrats in the nation’s capital this time around don’t even want to consider compromising. Republicans preceded them in opposing middle ground during the Obama years, especially on what came to be known as ObamaCare.

The reason for Democrat intransigence this time (which will even be more evident as they deal with the reality in the Senate that the House passed legislation today to avoid as government shutdown):

Wall Street editorial writers put it this way in regard to the current showdown over government shutdown:

“Washington is going through one of its hoary melodramas with the threat of a partial government shutdown at 12:01 Saturday morning if Congress doesn’t pass a funding bill. These are usually worth ignoring, but in this election year we are likely to see more such showdowns. So it’s important to understand the rule of shutdown politics: Democrats want a shutdown but Republicans will get blamed for it.”

Notice the phrase. “Democrats want a shutdown but Republicans will get blamed for it.”

So, that’s what is going on behind-the-scenes in Congress.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

“Democrats don’t want to take yes for an answer. GOP leaders want to negotiate a two-year budget deal separate of negotiations over immigration. But Democrats are refusing, though the date when new work permits will no longer be issued to the so-called Dreamer immigrants is the first week of March.

“Democrats are refusing even though the tentative budget deal being hashed out behind the scenes would also give them a big increase in new domestic non-entitlement spending over two years. Republicans would get more defense spending. Such a deal will give more Republicans heartburn on the policy merits, but Democrats still won’t accept.

“On Wednesday Democrats were even refusing to accept a short-time spending bill to fund the government for a month that includes reauthorization of the CHIP program for children’s health care. Democrats have spent weeks attacking Republicans for not reauthorizing CHIP, implying that children will be denied care.

“Democrats think a shutdown will improve their chances of retaking the House and Senate in November. Everything they do, every decision they make, is a political calculation with that in mind. Thus supposedly grave moral choices like children’s health care and legal status for immigrants are more important as political battering rams than as policy accomplishments. Dysfunction is desirable because Republicans are nominally in charge and will get the blame.”

Now, some of you may emphasize that Republicans played this same political gotcha game when they opposed president Barack Obama.

Yes, true enough. So I say a pox on both parties in Congress.

What we need is new blood in Congress and in the Oval Office, new blood that will be willing to compromise for the benefit of all Americans, not just for those who seek to stay in power.

Before that happens, there is little doubt but that we’ll have to endure more “government shutdown politics.”

As Americans, we’ll also have to change how we look at political figures. The test should not be whether they agree with us and are willing, figuratively, to yell loudly on the street corner to get attention. Iy should be whether political figures are committed to finding middle ground solutions.

Third-party candidates anyone?

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 found it hard over the last few days to imagine a president in this country using the word “s___h___” during a meeting in the White House.

If you would have asked me a year ago or so, I would have said, no, think again.

But, then we get Trump.

Not only do his comments illustrate that he has no sense of decorum, they compromise the ability to get anything done, including elements of his own agenda…that is, if he has agenda. In this case, rather than working on immigration reform, Trump’s agents and those in Congress spent hours discussing what he said and whether he uttered the “s___h___” comment.

Try to imagine yourself serving in the White House or in Congress with a person like Trump as president. The White House has some accomplishments in the first year of the Trump presidency, but, then, Trump says what thinks, without thinking, and you forget the accomplishments. Nearly everyone focuses on Trump’s disdain for decorum.

So it was this morning that I read again about Jeff Flake, the senator from Arizona, who can no longer tolerate serving in what once was the “world’s great deliberative body.” He is quitting and there are those who would say that he would not have won re-election again anyway.

Yet, even as he contemplates his departure from the Senate, I give kudos to Flake for his willingness to speak out against Trump, not for the president continuing to flout decorum, but for the damage Trump does to traits like truth.

Here is how, Flake put it on the Senate floor this week.

“2017 was a year which saw the truth – objective, empirical, evidence-based truth – more battered and abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government.

“It was a year which saw the White House enshrine ‘alternative facts’ into the American lexicon, as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods. It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. ‘The enemy of the people’ was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.

“It is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase ‘enemy of the people,’ that even Nikita Khrushchev forbad its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of ‘annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader.

“This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him ‘fake news,’ it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.

“I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome responsibility to serve in this chamber knows that these reflexive slurs of ‘fake news’ are dubious, at best.”

William Galston, writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, goes even farther, saying democracy is at risk, though he does hold out hope for its survival despite Trump.

“Many Americans worry about our democracy, and some fear for its survival. I believe we will emerge from these dark times with our institutions intact, and with a renewed commitment to the principles and norms that made us—until very recently—a symbol of hope around the world. I am confident the American people will ultimately reject a president whose public and private statements imply that he rejects the premise of our founding document, that all men are created equal.”

We need more political figures like Flake and Galston who are willing to call them as they see them. We’ll miss Flake’s honesty in the Senate and here’s hoping, with Galston, that democracy can prevail against Trump’s machinations.

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 often do some of my best thinking while returning from the golf course.

Yesterday, three questions crossed my mind:

• Does Donald Trump ever get embarrassed by what he said, such as the “shithole” comment in relation to Haiti, El Salvador and Africa?
• Does Donald Trump ever regret anything he says – such as the statement above or previous ones criticizing the Mexican judge, questioning Senator John McCain’s patriotism, or taking on the couple who had lost a son in war?
• Will Donald Trump ever issue an apology for something over-the-top which has crossed his lips?

I imagine the answer to all of these questions is no.

Trump appears to have no funnel through which he decides what to say. He often appears to say the first thing that comes to his mind, usually after watching Fox News.

If what he says one moment contradicts what he said before, no problem.

Before Trump was elected, he got into a set-to with reporter Megyn Kelly who magnified her disagreement with Trump into a major role for NBC news. Here’s what Jenna Johnson from the Washington Post wrote then and it is still true today:

“If there’s one thing that Trump does not do, it’s apologize — for anything, even comments or tweets he later admits were not in the best taste. That’s a list that seems to include two re-tweets from August that called Kelly a ‘bimbo’ and this tweet from January: ‘I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead, I will only call her a lightweight reporter!’”

Yeah, right.

So, does Trump have a conscience?

I obviously don’t know, but, again, it would appear not.

If the issue was only the lack of decorum in the Oval Office, that would be one thing. But it is deeper than that.

Trump comes across as racist. He is an egotist. He believes “it’s always about me” and that he is always right…others be damned. He wants everyone know that he has his finger on nuclear button and it is bigger than anyone else’s.

We need someone better in the White House!

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.

Every time I hear Trump talk, I wonder if we have heard the last of his over-the-top and vulgar pronouncements.

Then, he tops himself.

He did so earlier this week when he uttered a vulgar phrase that should never come off a president’s lips.

“Why do we want all these people from these shithole countries here?,” Trump was reported to have said. By these “shithole” countries, Trump was referring to El Salvador, Haiti and Africa.

A faithful reporter like me would go on to say that Trump added this phrase to what he said, “We should have people from places like Norway.” Well, that is my ancestry, so, yes, let’s have more Norwegians.

But the point of this blog is to say that Trump is the worst of presidents. His language is incendiary. In this case, it risked compromising talks under way between Congress and the Trump Administration to find middle ground on immigration issues.

Tough to find middle ground with a president who doesn’t see any. Or, least compromises any attempt to find such ground.

CNN editor Chris Cillizza put it this way: “Make no mistake: This is the lowest ebb of a presidency defined by a series of low ebbs and defining of the presidency downward. Yes, lower than Trump’s comments about Mexico sending us “rapists” and “criminals.”

“Lower than questioning Sen. John McCain’s military service. Lower than his impugning of a judge because of his Mexican heritage. Lower than his questioning the motives of a Gold Star family. Lower than the 2,000 mis-truths and outright falsehoods he has said since becoming President. Lower than his racially-tinged attacks on the anthem protests by NFL players. Lower even than his “both sides” argument in the wake of white supremacist violence against peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“This is not only a President of the United States voicing racist sentiment in front of a group of people. It is also doubling down on those sentiments — proudly! — because it might advance his political power among his base.

“This is — much like Charlottesville — an abdication of the moral authority of the presidency, but it’s more than that: It’s saying, quite simply, that saying racist stuff is a-OK as long as it works politically.

There are things that are — or should be — beyond politics. The most important of those things is the belief that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Racism from Trump? Yes. There is no other way to read his latest statement. I

Is it as low as he can go? Probably not.

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.

My involvement with hospital and health insurance taxes to fund low-income health care in Oregon goes back to 1993.

That was the year the health care taxes were first instituted.  The lure was to use the new “state” — money paid by hospitals and insurers — to serve as match to garner millions of dollars under Medicaid.

Since then, I have had questions about the merits of the tax, but back then, as well as today, I always have come to an uneasy conclusion:

This is the best solution available for Oregon.  You don’t have to like all aspects of the taxes…you just have to settle for them.

So, I say vote “yes” by January 23.

The lure of federal matching dollars has prompted more than 40 states, plus the District of Columbia, to engage in the tax scheme.  At various times in the last 15 years, it has seemed like the federal government was ready to turn off the spigot.  But, the approach has remained in place.

Here in Oregon, one of the reasons that the tax makes sense is that health care does not rise to the top of the political priority scale at the Capitol in Salem.  The top spot usually is reserved for K-12 education, which continues to draw a huge chunk of total state dollars.

The common plea from K-12 advocates is that it’s “never enough, but they are still at the head of the line for state money.

Next is either cops and prisons, or higher education.  So, health care and human services come in last among the major contenders.

That means the only way to assure care for low-income citizens is to resort to the hospital and insurance taxes.

Now, if I supported the “no” side of this debate, I’d say that hospital and insurance constitute bad tax policy.  Better to apply a tax across the broadest possible swath of taxpayers than to single out certain payers.

I might also charge that it’s often foolhardy to trust state budget makers in the legislative process because they often engage in sleight of hand that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to track sources of money in coordination with the final destination of those dollars.

But, I digress.  No point in making arguments for those who oppose the taxes.

Better to cite a source none other than Dr. John Kitzhaber, former governor of Oregon, who while he is under an ethical cloud, remains very knowledgeable about health care policy issues. Here is what he wrote for the Oregonian newspaper.

“I agree that funding for the Oregon Health Plan is a shared social responsibility, but jeopardizing health insurance coverage for 350,000 Oregonians to make that point is equally unfair and unnecessary.

“Let’s put this into perspective. We need a stable, long-term — and equitable — funding strategy for the health plan, which contributes to the state’s chronic structural budget deficit. As The Oregonian correctly pointed out, the governor and legislative leadership failed to address either issue. But defeating the ballot measure will only make it that much more difficult to do so in the future.

“Should the ballot measure be defeated, there will be a number of immediate consequences. First, 350,000 low-income, working Oregonians will lose their health insurance coverage. These people should not be punished because the short-term legislative funding is not as broad-based as perhaps it should be. Doing so would be to sacrifice the good for the perfect and leaving us with the unacceptable.

“Second, since the federal government matches every dollar the state spends on Medicaid, the Oregon economy will lose billions in federal funds. Enrollment in the Oregon Health Plan will decline by more than one-third, making it difficult to maintain the infrastructure of our coordinated care organizations that have made Oregon a national leader in reducing the cost of health care while maintaining quality and outcomes. This would not only be detrimental to those currently covered by the Oregon Health Plan, it would also compromise the integrity of a health-care delivery model that offers perhaps the best opportunity to reduce the long-term cost of care for both public and private employees.”

Kitzhaber is right. The only rationale vote is “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.

With nothing else to do a few days ago as I waited for a flight to the mainland from Hawaii, I thought of some words to describe Donald Trump who is just starting his second year in the presidency.

Then, I wanted until returning to post this blog and what I hear – Trump sounding like a California valley girl in the 1990s by saying, “Like, I’m really smart, a very stable genius.”

Like, say what? If you have to say you’re a genius and add to that you are stable, then you aren’t either.

It’s hard to realize that we have survived one year of this president who has changed the office for the worse during his first 12 months there. Now, only three more to go.

I suppose it would be possible for fans of Trump to laud a few achievements – getting Judge Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, working with Congress to pass the most wide- ranging tax reform since the Reagan years, and rolling back portions of the huge regulatory burden left by former President Barack Obama.

But, he has almost continually sabotaged his own agenda by tweets that not long lacked decorum, but also impugned the integrity of those named in the tweets. You might contend that Kim Jong un from North Korea has no integrity, deserved to be impugned, and that it was right for Trump to roast him in tweets. But one risk is that those tweets, alone, could increase the chance of nuclear war between two immature combatants – and Trump even contended that his “button” was bigger than Jon un’s.

At any rate, with so much time on my hands, I made a list of words that I have used to describe Trump, over the last year.

Buffoon

Egotist

Shallow

Daft

“It’s all about me”

Ignorant

Arrogant

Liar

Blowhard

Idiot

Racist

Misogynist

Egomaniac

Bombastic

Clown

Obnoxious

Delusional

Unqualified

Repulsive

Pompous

Incompetent

These are words that are not presidential. We deserve better. There is decorum to observe in the nation’s highest political office and Trump observes none of it.

Say what you will about Trump’s “achievements.” For me, they pale in comparison to his “it’s all about me” attitude.

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 watched the set-to between President Donald Trump (that title still is not easy to type after one year of being true) and his former senior advisor, Steve Bannon, I couldn’t help but have this thought:

Trump and Bannon could have written the diatribes together, wedded as they are to hyperbole, overstatement and harsh words.

Neither man now likes the other even though they worked together closely during the campaign and during the first six months in the White House.

Washington Post reporter James Hohmann had a similar perspective in a column this week.

“None of this is normal,” he wrote. “Try to picture Barack Obama declaring that David Axelrod had ‘lost his mind,’ George W. Bush saying that Karl Rove ‘is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look,’ or Bill Clinton’s lawyers sending James Carville a cease-and-desist letter threatening ‘imminent’ legal action.

“Conversely, imagine Robby Mook saying that Chelsea Clinton is ‘dumb as a brick.’”

All of those scenarios are inconceivable, but not in the Trump reign. It’s just another week in this chaotic White House, which once again plunged into crisis mode after the publication of excerpts from a forthcoming book by Michael Wolff called “Fire and Fury,” which relies heavily on quotes from Bannon.

Hohmann continues: “President Trump’s insistence that Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist and a top aide at the White House until five months ago, was a mere ‘staffer’ who had ‘very little to do with our historic victory’ is akin to Joseph Stalin trying to erase Leon Trotsky from the history of the Russian Revolution.

“This is part of a well-established pattern for the thrice-married Trump, who treats partners and aides as disposable once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him and downplays their roles after they run into trouble.”

CBS’s John Dickerson got into the act this week with this comment: “Saying Steve Bannon has nothing to do with Trump or his presidency is like saying you’re not married to your ex-wife. It may true at the moment, but it doesn’t erase the marriage.”

Loyalty is not worth two cents in the Trump Administration. Bannon, unscrupulous as he is, is not loyal to Trump. And Trump, ever the egotist, is not loyal to Bannon.

Both appear to be out for what they see as their own good, the public be damned.

My view? They deserve each other!

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 watched the set-to between President Donald Trump (that title still is not easy to type after one year of being true) and his former senior advisor, Steve Bannon, I couldn’t help but have this thought:

Just reverse the attribution and it would ring like what Trump and Bannon could have written together, wedded as they are to hyperbole, overstatement and harsh words.

Neither man now likes the other even though they worked together closely during the campaign and during the first six months in the White House.

Washington Post reporter James Hohmann had a similar perspectiv in a column this morning.

“None of this is normal,” he wrote. “Try to picture Barack Obama declaring that David Axelrod had ‘lost his mind,’ George W. Bush saying that Karl Rove ‘is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look,’ or Bill Clinton’s lawyers sending James Carville a cease-and-desist letter threatening ‘imminent’ legal action.

“Conversely, imagine Robby Mook saying that Chelsea Clinton is ‘dumb as a brick.’”

All of those scenarios are inconceivable, but not in the Trump reign. It’s just another Wednesday in this chaotic White House, which once again plunged into crisis mode after the publication of excerpts from a forthcoming book by Michael Wolff called “Fire and Fury,” which relies heavily on quotes from Bannon.

Hohmann continues: “President Trump’s insistence that Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist and a top aide at the White House until five months ago, was a mere ‘staffer’ who had ‘very little to do with our historic victory’ is akin to Joseph Stalin trying to erase Leon Trotsky from the history of the Russian Revolution.

“This is part of a well-established pattern for the thrice-married Trump, who treats partners and aides as disposable once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him and downplays their roles after they run into trouble.”

CBS’s John Dickerson got into the act yesterday with this comment: “Saying Steve Bannon has nothing to do with Trump or his presidency is like saying you’re not married to your ex-wife. It may true at the moment, but it doesn’t erase the marriage.”

Loyalty is not worth two cents in the Trump Administration. On one hand, I suppose it’s tough to be loyal to either of the crude principals in this latest political act.

Trump inspires little loyalty. Bannon is out, like Trump, for his own interests, whatever those may be.

My view? They deserve each other!

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 ask the question in the headline as someone who was involved in politics for some 40 years, first as a state government manager for 15 years, then as a private sector lobbyist for 25 years.

During that time, I saw – and, in fact, was a part of – many processes where the goal was to find the smart middle ground on tough public policy issues. I’ll recount a few of the cases below.

But, for now, let me, as General Colin Powell said when he decided not to run for president, “bemoan the loss of civility in politics.”

It seems that everyone is out to get everyone else. The objective is not to find the best policy solution that would benefit the public. The objective appears to win at all costs and the other side(s) be damned.

Nowhere has all this been more true than in Congress. Seven years ago, Republicans balked at being involved at all in what came to be called ObamaCare.. If they would have involved themselves, the result would have been better.

Now, seven years later, Democrats boycotted the process in Congress that produced the first major tax reform since the Reagan years. Again, the result would have been better as a bi-partisan achievement.

In Oregon, things are different than they are in Washington, D.C. Democrats are in charge everywhere here with the exception of the Secretary of State’s office, which is in Republican hands for the first time in 30 years.

Democrats hold nearly super-majority margins of control in both the House and Senate and most prognosticators expect Democrats to widen their margins in the next election. So, the Ds don’t need Republicans, even centrist ones, to do what they want to do

Democrats also have held the Governor’s Office for more than 35 years. I had the privilege of working for the last Republican, Vic Atiyeh, but, since Atiyeh, no one has put together the ability to keep Democrats out of the central office at the Capitol.

Now, on to issues where, at least in the past, legislators in Salem have managed to find middle ground.

Workers’ comp: This is one of the best examples in Oregon of a move to the center. A number of years ago, then Governor Neil Goldschmidt (who has since been banished for illicit sexual activity) called labor and business to the governor’s residence, Mahonia Hall, to try to find a fix for workers’ comp rates, which had been high enough to constrain business activity in Oregon.

The group produced a result – one that helped business invest, as well as protected workers injured on the job.

Columbia River Channel deepening: About 12 years ago, the length – not to mention the depth – of the Columbia River channel had created an economic dilemma for Oregon. Deeper-draft ships could not ply their way inland to the Port of Portland and other near-Portland ports.

The solution? Dig a deeper channel, with the costs to be borne collaboratively by the states of Oregon and Washington, as well as by the federal government.

It took multiple biennial budget periods for the deed to be done and, along the way, environmental interests had to be convinced that Columbia River sand – environmentalists called the sand “spoils” – could be placed on land in a way that would not create damage. Plus, the sand had value, so could be purchased by business interests to defray at least part of the cost of dredging.

Implementing Oregon’s assisted suicide law: After the law passed in Oregon by a wide margin — 60 to 40 – questions arose about the adequacy of the “immunities clause” in the law, which had been drafted quickly and poorly.

What could be done to allow major health care providers in Oregon – including my client, Providence Health System – to comply with the law while exercising religious commitments?

The solution occurred when a stalwart legislator, then Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, called a group together to try to work out a fix. His leadership worked and the fix for Providence went like this: The system could bar assisted suicide from being done on its property, by its employees, or by its contractors “within the course and scope of their contracts.”

In return, Providence had to accept an obligation to refer those who wanted assisted suicide out to other reputable providers. It was tough for Providence to accept the referral requirement, but it did as part of the compromise deal.

Balancing the state budget: This occurs every two years in Oregon state government and always is an example of finding middle ground. The reason? By law, the budget must be in balance – that is, expected revenues must equal expected expenditures over the two-year budget period.

This, of course, is a far cry from what happens in Washington, D.C. when money is simply printed to “balance” the budget.

In Oregon, the requirement to be in balance forces both sides – Democrats and Republicans – to seek and find middle ground.

Overall, these examples are meant to show that middle ground still exists. It may be hard to find in a political environment that often emphasizes winning and losing. But it is still worth the effort despite the hurdles.