[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

That was the theme of a sermon last Sunday from the lead pastor, Steve Fowler, at the church we have attended for more than 30 years in Salem.

His point: On the hand, the time may be right for those who attend church to function as “renters” when they are just visiting or learning about a church they might attend over the longer. But, on the other hand, once someone has found a church home, it is better for that person to function as an “owner.”

That way, they’ll have a sense of responsibility to share in the functioning of a church and to help people find their way toward God.

There are a number of spiritual implications of Mr. Fowler’s point and I know he hoped those who heard him would focus on those implications.

Let me say I did, but after church, my thoughts also went to renters and owners as those terms might apply to the lobbying business where I made my career for about 40 years.

My point: It is better to own an issue you are lobbying than simply to rent it – or borrow it – for a period of time.

If you own an issue as a lobbyist, you will work doubly hard on behalf of your client to achieve the objective, or in the art of politics, to find a workable compromise

If you just rent the issue, you won’t care as deeply about it – or work as hard as you should to achieve the objective.

In summary, what are some of the characteristics of those who own a lobbying issue?

• You would care for the issue like you would the house or car or any other possessions you own.

• You would take responsibility to make it is ready to be viewed by guests.

• When the time is right to sell the issue you own, you would work hard to make it presentable to potential buyers.

So, permit me to emphasize this secular perspective from a spiritual point – as a lobbyist it is better to own an issue than rent it.

[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

It used to be that anyone running for office would worry about his or her reputation.

• Was there some past misdeed that would come back to haunt the candidate?

• Could the candidate avoid the gaffe that would put him or her under fire for weeks?

• Could a candidate concentrate on being for something without engaging in personal attacks?

Well, for those enamored with Donald Trump, the very nature of politics has changed.

Go no farther than considering this description of Trump authored by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in a piece about Trump’s supposed appeal to parts of the so-called “religious right:”

“Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?”

In the past, some of those in politics have acted as if any mention of their name in the media, even in a negative story, was better than not being mentioned at all. For Trump, he has taken this to an entirely new level.

As someone who values a positive reputation and an ability to engage in respectful political discourse, Trump’s run for the Republican nomination for president leaves me cold. It also raises the specter that political campaigns have changed – and for the worse.

In a Wall Street Journal piece a week ago, author Andy Kessler provided the following summary of Trump’s success, which he called “Trumponomics in 10 Easy Steps:”

1. Be born rich.
2. Own politicians.
3. Get tax breaks.
4. Monetize addiction. “Protected cash flow from apartments and office space is nice, and the Trump name attracts tenants willing to blow cash. But there must be another way to extract money from people. Fortunately, gambling became legal in New Jersey in 1976. Voilà: Harrah’s at Trump Plaza opened in 1984 and quickly shortened its name to Trump Plaza (hey, it was the ’80s, and the name said classy to high rollers).”
5. Go in debt up to our eyeballs.
6. Stick banks and bondholders with disasters, (as Trump has done by declaring bankruptcy more than once).
7. Churn out books. “Pop business books are often like tomes from Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle or other gurus. You read them in a flash, feel inspired for 24 hours and then days later can’t recall a single worthwhile syllable. Mr. Trump mastered this art: “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire” (2004); “Trump 101: The Way to Success” (2006); “Midas Touch” (2011). It’s hard to find anyone who profited from these books, other than the guy with the I’m-a-serious-thinker expression on the cover.”
8. Franchise your name.
9. Channel your inner Kim Kardashian. “With so many Trump properties and golf courses and “The Apprentice” television show, it’s hard for most people to remember how Donald Trump got so rich in the first place. In the Kardashian and Nicky Hilton tradition, Mr. Trump is now famous because he is famous.”
10. Run for office. His presidential aspirations seem to be a vanity run gone wild.

All of this sickens me, as does Trump. He is a buffoon who has no business running for office with his sordid reputation, his pandering approach to women, and his outsize ego where he is always the most important person in the room no matter what he says or does.

My view is that no one should pay any attention to him. We need real people, with real pasts who will run for office with a real approach to recommend how to solve real problems.

Not Trump.

[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

I was struck the other day by reading opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal that compared two competing “theologies,” if that word even applies in one case.

One piece – hard to affix the label “theology” — dealt with Donald Trump and his apparent appeal to some have called the “religious right.”

The second dealt with former President Jimmy Carter and his incredible, personal and theologically-based approach to the reality that he now faces a cancer fight, at 90 years of age, for his life.

Let me put it simply: There is much to admire about Carter’s approach; there is much to disdain about Trump’s.

Consider this opening paragraph from columnist Frank Bruni as he wrote about the “theology of Donald Trump:”

“Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?”

Then, for contrast, look only to a piece by another columnist, Leonard Pitts, who knows real Christianity when he sees it.

Pitts wrote: “You did not hear much about faith last week when Jimmy Carter held a press conference to reveal that he has four spots of cancer on his brain. The 39th president made only a few references to it in the nearly 40 minutes he spoke, and they were all in response to reporter’s questions. Yet, you would be hard-pressed to find a more compelling statement of belief in things not seen.

“Unsentimental, poised and lit from within by an amazing grace, Carter discussed the fight now looming ahead of him, the radiation treatments he will undergo, the need to finally cut back on his whirlwind schedule. He smiled often. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said, in such a way that you believed him without question. And it was impossible to feel sorry for him.”

Okay, Mr. Carter is not for running for president this time around, but, if he were, I would vote for him in a nanosecond compared with Trump (and notice that I don’t convey respect for Trump by using the title Mr.).

He is a terrible candidate for president when what this country needs is real people who will propose real solutions to real problems and, all the while, exhibit real faith.

[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of the headaches for those who hope golf, as a sport, can claim a larger audience is the fact that the game can be so slow.

That, plus the hours it takes to get in 18 holes – often four hours, if not more – makes it difficult to attract new devotees.

With this background, I was interested to read a piece by James Achenbach, who is retiring after many years as a writer for Golf Week magazine.

“Show play is one of golf’s biggest enemies,” he wrote, “but two club pros in the western United States deserve mention for leading the campaign to rid it from golf as if it were a malignant weed.”

Achenbach proceeded to highlight the efforts of the two club pros. One, Dick Hyland, head professional at The Country Club in DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Arizona, says fast golf is a way of life. He likes to play an 18-hole round each week with a different member of his club. As a twosome, they ride, are the first out on a given day and get around 18 holes in under two hours.

The other club pro, J.D. Ebersberger, co-founder of The Palms Golf Club in La Quinta, California, established three hours and 15 minutes as the target time for completing 18 holes.

As these two stories indicate, there are a number of ways to speed up golf, even if, as I do, you often walk 18 holes, which translates into about five miles. Always be ready to play when it is your turn. Figure out your yardage before it is your turn. When you get over your ball, take no more 15 seconds to hit a shot.

All of this argues against mimicking golf on the PGA Tour where players take much longer to play than they should. Slow play can become pattern for new players. Of course, the pros are playing for a lot of money, but, still, their example is not one to follow.

Golf can be a pastime for a lifetime, as it is for me. Good to be outdoors, getting exercise and playing a game that can tax your physical and mental strength. Just play faster.

And this footnote: It also is possible play golf too fast, thus ignoring the beauty of the surroundings and the pace of the game played well. To use a hackneyed phrase, stop and smell the roses.

In sum, play at a good pace, neither too slow nor too fast and enjoy the pastime that has captured the imagination of players for the ages.

[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of the headaches for those who hope golf, as a sport, can claim a larger audience is the fact that the game can be so slow.

That, plus the hours it takes to get in 18 holes – often four hours, if not more – makes it difficult to attract new devotees.

With this background, I was interested to read a piece by James Achenbach, who is retiring after many years as a writer for Golf Week magazine.

“Show play is one of golf’s biggest enemies,” he wrote, “but two club pros in the western United States deserve mention for leading the campaign to rid it from golf as if it were a malignant weed.”

Achenbach proceeded to highlight the efforts of the two club pros. One, Dick Hyland, head professional at The Country Club in DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Arizona, says fast golf is a way of life. He likes to play an 18-hole round each week with a different member of his club. As a twosome, they ride, are the first out on a given day and get around 18 holes in under two hours.

The other club pro, J.D. Ebersberger, co-founder of The Palms Golf Club in La Quinta, California, established three hours and 15 minutes as the target time for completing 18 holes.

As these two stories indicate, there are a number of ways to speed up golf, even if, as I do, you often walk 18 holes, which translates into about five miles. Always be ready to play when it is your turn. Figure out your yardage before it is your turn. When you get over your ball, take no more 15 seconds to hit a shot.

All of this argues against mimicking golf on the PGA Tour where players take much longer to play than they should. Slow play can become pattern for new players. Of course, the pros are playing for a lot of money, but, still, their example is not one to follow.

Golf can be a pastime for a lifetime, as it is for me. Good to be outdoors, getting exercise and playing a game that can tax your physical and mental strength. Just play faster.

And this footnote: It also is possible play golf too fast, thus ignoring the beauty of the surroundings and the pace of the game played well. To use a hackneyed phrase, stop and smell the roses.

In sum, play at a good pace, neither too slow or too fast and enjoy the pastime that has captured the imagination of players for the ages.

[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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of my old teachers used the phrase “best fact first” when it came to writing. So, it may not be wise to start with the bad news because the approach can leave that news intact before getting to the better news. But so be it. In this post, I start with the negative.

The title lobbyist often conjures up negative images these days and I have nearly 40 years of experience hearing all of the bad stuff, not to mention media coverage that suggests all lobbyists are out to fleece the public.

Here are some fables about what all lobbyists do:

• They carry around a bag of money and use the paper to buy results.

• They have no respect for accuracy and resort only to overstatement and threats.

• They plays fast and loose with facts to get their way on matters that should be related to the public interest, not private gain.

Well, that is not my experience. I functioned as a private sector lobbyist for almost 25 years and that experience came on top of another 15 years for government agencies where one of the my responsibilities was to relate to elected officials.

I was able to do this job, not perfectly of course, but with fealty to honesty and integrity. To get my way, I never lied or created false information.

I represented my clients, keeping their best interests in mind, with an eye, at the same time, to the public interest.

One credential was patently clear to me after 40 years in the business: Your word is your bond. If that was not true, you were in trouble, your credibility was at stake and so was the reputation of your clients.

When I told my mother about what I did for a living, I often resorted to three descriptions. First, I said, I was like an attorney; I had a client, had a contract to represent that client and my “courtroom” was the Capitol where I would meet with legislators.

Second, I said I was like a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. Figuratively speaking, I had to yell to get an elected official’s attention with a lot of competitors.

Third, I was like a salesperson. I was not selling a car, a home or a widget. I was selling ideas – a perspective from client that would be affected by passage or failure of a specific piece of legislation.

So, take it from me, even with my bias, lobbying is an honorable profession. F course, there are those who don’t act in an honest and forthright fashion. But, most lobbyists act with a “your word is your bond” ethic and, thus, deserve respect as key players in the process of making public policy.

            [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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

Why does Donald Trump continue to rise in the polls as America looks forward to the 2016 presidential election?

Perhaps there is no one answer to that question, but one factor is that many Americans are fed up with the current nature of politics and the failure of any of the elected class to deal genuinely with the real problems facing this country.

Put me in that camp of the disgruntled.

But, that said, there is no way that I could sign on to support Trump. His so-called “ideas” are outlandish and he couldn’t achieve them even if he was king for day. He blunders on, saying anything and everything, content, it would appear, to boost his own substantial ego.

If someone like me wants to help produce a better political process oriented to making tough decisions on tough public policy problems, the path to that process does not go through Trump.

Consider his immigration notions. He wants to deport all of those who are immigrants, including the children of immigrants who were born here. He couldn’t do that without changing the U.S. Constitution and that would take a political agreement that is not in the cards.

It would take years and millions of dollars to round up all of the immigrants around the country and throw them out, an action which would disrupt families and sow nothing but discord in a country where welcoming immigrants is a long-held position.

Still, Trump blunders on. And it seems that most members of the media giving him a pass as they appear willing to accept by his egotistical, bombastic style with no test of accuracy or ability to achieve.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, not content to join other members of her craft, went deeper this week with a piece entitled, “America is so in play.”

She pointed to several factors that have given rise to Trump:

• One is the deepening estrangement between the elites and the non-elites in America. This is the area in which Trumpism flourishes.

• Second, Mr. Trump’s support is not limited to Republicans, not by any means.

• Third, the traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe — its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials — have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore. Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t just bucking a party, they’re bucking everything around, within and connected to it.

• Fourth, “the base” isn’t the limited, clichéd thing it once was; it’s becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.

Noonan adds that, on the subject of elites, she spoke to Scott Miller, co-founder of the Sawyer Miller political-consulting firm, who is now a corporate consultant. He worked on the Ross Perot campaign in 1992 and knows something about outside challenges.

Miller, Noonan wrote, views the key political fact of our time as this: “Over 80 per cent of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected. It is ‘a remarkable moment.’ More than half of the American people believe ‘something has changed, our democracy is not like it used to be, people feel they no longer have a voice.

“People who work for a living are thinking this thing is broken, and that economic inequality is the result of the elite rigging the system for themselves. We’re seeing something big.”

Noonan ends her piece with this: “An odd thing, in my observation, is that deep down the elite themselves also think the game is rigged. They don’t disagree, and they don’t like what they see — corruption, shallowness and selfishness in the systems all around them. Their odd anguish is that they have no faith the American people can — or will — do anything to turn it around. They see the American voter as distracted, poorly educated, subject to emotional and personality-driven political adventures. They sometimes refer to “Jaywalking,” the old Jay Leno “Tonight Show” staple in which he walked outside the studio and asked the man on the street about history. What caused the American Civil War? Um, Hitler? When did it take place, roughly? Uh, 1958?

“Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck.

“The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.”

I am among those who have believed that the preoccupation with Trump would not last. I have thought he would implode, but he already has lasted longer than I thought he would.

Therefore, Noonan’s analysis makes sense to me. But I hope that Americans who are fed up with the status quo will opt for something more genuine than Trump.

We need real people who will debate real problems and come up with real solution

[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 to 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, rather than just my monologue.]

To read some news accounts recently, you’d think that immigration policy was a new issue.

It’s not.

Would-be policymakers in Washington, D.C. ( I write would-be because they have not actually come up with a policy) and states along the border between the U.S. and Mexico have struggled with the issue for years, with no solutions in mind, perhaps in part because we are a nation of immigrants; at least my generation’s forbears were.

Donald Trump, who deals in overstatements, even said in early August on the presidential campaign trail (yes, it is incredible that the blowhard is viewed these days as a genuine candidate for the nation’s highest political office) that “this was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement.”

Absurdly, Trump even advocated two so-called “policy innovations:” Abolition of birthright citizenship and mass deportation.

Many reporters let that Trump’s inaccuracies ride, but New York Times columnist Charles Krauthammer would not be still. He performed a service by putting Trump’s comments in a context, with these points, under a telling headline – Borderline Lunacy:

THROWING OUT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: If you are born in the United States, Krauthammer reminds readers that “you are an American citizen.” That’s because the 14^ttth amendment to the Constitution exists. Rounding up and deporting all of the citizens, mostly children, who were born of immigrant parents, admittedly many of them illegals, would require years of work and millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in costs.

MASS DEPORTATION: Trump told NBC reporters that “all illegal immigrants must leave the country, along once they’ve been kicked out, we’ll let the good ones back in.”

“On its own terms,” Krauthammer writes, “this is crackpot. Wouldn’t it save a lot just on Mayflower moving costs if you chose the ‘good ones’ first – before sending SWAT teams to turf families out of their homes, loading them on buses and dumping them on the other side of the Rio Grande.”

“Less frivolously,” Krauthammer adds, “it is estimated by the conservative American Action Forum that mass deportation would take about 20 years and cost about $500 billion for all the police, judges, lawyers and enforcement agents – and bus drivers! – needed to expel 11 million people.

“This would all be merely ridiculous if it weren’t morally obscene. Forcibly evict 11 million people from their homes? It can’t happen. It shouldn’t happen. And, of course, it won’t ever happen. But because it’s the view of the Republican front-runner, every other candidate is now required to react. So instead of debating border security, guest-worker programs and sanctuary cities – where Republicans are on firm moral and political ground – they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy.”

WHO BENEFITS FROM TRUMP’S EGO-DRIVEN BOMBAST? THE DEMOCRATS: If you are a conservative alarmed at the country’s direction and committed to retaking the White House, Krauthammer says you should be concerned about what Trump’s ascendancy is doing to the chances of that happening.

“The Democrats’ presumptive candidate is flailing badly,” Krauthammer writes. “Republicans have an unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back the presidency. Do they really want to be dragged into the swamps — right now on immigration? – that will make that prospect electorally impossible?”

As a footnote, Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn added his voice to the debate over the weekend when he wrote a piece on the immigration debate, with an emphasis on Oregon.

“It was always hard to figure out the logistics,” Sarasohn writes, “of just how more than 100,000 undocumented immigrants in Oregon were going to quickly shipped out of the country…There would be the matter of tens of thousands of Oregon families being taken apart, and large part of the Oregon economy ceasing to exists, but, hey, we’re about a principle here.”

Point made.

Responding to the writing of Krauthammer and Sarasohn, this writer hopes that we will find a better way to have debates about critical issues facing this country, including immigration.

We need rationale, moral, thoughtful people who will vie to lead this country where ALL of us reside.

[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 to 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, rather than just my monologue.

Here we are still a few months away from the presidential primary and all we see are continuing horse-race stories about the contest on both sides – Democrat and Republican – or even a third side, Independent.

It’s possible that the result could boil down to a tough choice for voters between an alleged crook on one hand and a blowhard on the other. The alleged crook is Democrat Hillary Clinton, who is under continuing scrutiny for use of personal e-mail accounts to do the public’s business. The blowhard – not necessary to use the word “alleged” in this case – is Republican Donald Trump, who appears to believe he can say anything because any comment will buttress his already massive ego.

Clinton, for her part, is coming under increasing scrutiny for her use of a private e-mail account, including, allegedly, to handle classified material when she was Secretary of State. She also appeared to use that high office to create windfalls for the Clinton Foundation.

It is possible, as this is written, that Vice President Joe Biden will enter the D fray, an action which could be good news for Senator Bernie Sanders if Biden’s entry takes already eroding support away from Clinton.

But, for now, back to the Republicans.

With only media accounts on which to rely, it is difficult to sift and sort through all of the candidates, especially with so many — too many for one debate — in the race.

Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib performed a service a couple weeks ago when he wrote a piece dividing the Republican candidates into two camps after the first debate – fighters and statesmen.

His piece asked the question: Do voters want a candidate who channels their anger, or one who acknowledges it yet moves beyond it? Seib added: It says something about the national mood of 2016 that it isn’t entirely clear which is the better place to land.

Seib put Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Mike Huckagee in the fighter camp.

While those candidates, Seib wrote, were engaged in a kind of debate demolition derby, there was another group that seemed more interested in a calmer drive down the political parkway.

In this calmer camp, he put Jeb Bush, Marcio Rubio, Scott Walker and John Kasich. Seib added that three candidates relegated to the early debate on Fox – Carly Fiornia, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal – might find a way to gain some traction heading toward Iowa.

What works best – fighting or statesmanship? There is no agreement this far in advance of the 2016 primaries.

From the Seib column: “The fight camp is about dividing folks, like Obama has done,” said Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign and now directs political operations for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Statesmen are more about growth–growing the party and being upbeat and optimistic about the future.”

Similarly, Kevin Madden, who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, says “these races ultimately always shift towards becoming a contest of who is the most presidential.”

Finally, Seib says there is a question about whether anyone can bridge the fighter and statesmen camps. So far, there has been no answer to that question and the answer probably won’t emerge until Donald Trump exits stage left, for he is, at best, an actor playing a part – and here’s hoping the departure occurs soon.

[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 to 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, rather than just my monologue.]

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece the other day recalled for me difficult memories of the time, 20 years ago, when Oregonians voted to approve the first doctor assisted suicide measure in the country.

The headline on the piece illustrates the writer’s point of view: A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine.

Further, the writer, Dr. William L. Toffler, an Oregon physician who heads Physician for Compassionate Care, said he “had seen the dire effect of assisted-suicide laws on patients and my profession.”

For me, the piece brought to mind these facts:

THE FIRST CAMPAIGN: My firm, CFM Strategic Communications, ran the opposition campaign the first time the measure appeared on the ballot. It was a hard-fought campaign and, as you might imagine, featured themes that tugged at the emotions of Oregonians on both – if not all – sides of the debate.

The result was that Oregonian approved the measure by a 51-49 vote, which as the margin indicates, could not have been predicted by any reputable pollster.

THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE: It was tough for many legislators to understand the implications of this first-in-the-nation law, so, in a difficult decision, they sent the measure back out to a vote of the people. Even after “the people spoke,” legislators asked them to speak again – and they did, this time by a clear 60-40 margin. [It should be added that my firm did not run that second campaign.]

A FURTHER LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE: What follows next is a tribute to the ability of a legislature to rise to the occasion and develop a compromise that reflects true middle ground – no one is 100 per cent in favor of the compromise, but everyone gets something even while losing something.

This was the case when the legislature took on the task of revising the “immunities” section of the law that had recently cleared the ballot.

Tough work.

The task was assigned to then Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, a seasoned legislator with the ability to find the smart middle ground and lead his colleagues in the Senate and the House to accept the decision.

He called various interests into a back room, including representatives of the assisted suicide advocacy group, Oregon Right to Die, and me, as the representative of Oregon’s largest health care system, Providence Health & Services.

Further, in a wise move, Bryant specifically prohibited the Oregon Catholic Conference from participating in the negotiations because it would have been impossible for the religious organization to compromise on an issue of faith and principle.

Over several weeks we hammered out a compromise that allowed organizations like Providence, which were affiliated with a religious organization, to prevent assisted suicide “on their property, by their employees, and within the course and scope of contractual arrangements.”

In return, Providence had to agree to a tough corollary – it had to refer patients out for information and services related to assisted suicide. And, for some, referral is tantamount to “agentry,” which is viewed as being almost the same as engaging in the immoral action itself. For a health care provider, however, it made sense to accept the compromise in light of the new Oregon law, as well as the obligations to meet the needs of ALL patients.

IMPLEMENTING THE LAW: In his Wall Street Journal piece, Dr. Tofler says that more than 850 persons have taken their lives by ingesting massive overdoses of barbiturates prescribed under the law.

Proponents, he says, claim the system is working well with no problems. He disagrees.

“As a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, as well as a licensed physician for 35 years, I have seen firsthand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide.

“As a society, we should continue to reject the legalization of physician-assisted suicide as a solution to suffering. Instead, we must work to increase access to hospice and palliative care to better support those suffering from terminal illness. The sick and aging deserve better than Oregon’s mistake.”

WHAT’S AHEAD: The debate over assisted suicide is clearly not over, though the law in Oregon is not likely to change. Anyone who has been involved with loved ones or friends in the late stages of their lives can understand the interest in the poignant and emotional decisions near the end, including in the midst of suffering. At the same time, Dr. Tofler’s personal experiences propose the notion that physicians should focus on life, not death.

All of these tough issues will arise again to the south as the state of California considers an assisted suicide measure. The venue will be the California legislature where the outcome is in doubt, given religious opposition, hesitant Democrats and question marks from Governor Jerry Brown who says a special session is not the place to consider such a weighty decision.