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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

This, remember, is one of several departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

The peeves below would have fit in the Department of “Just Saying,” but I choose to open the Department of Pet Peeves instead.

PEEVE #1:  PAYING PREMIUMS AND FILING CLAIMS

Insurance companies love when you pay premiums and hate when you make claims.

We are learning this again as we wait for coverage of water damage in our laundry workroom.  The insurer should have responded by now, but wait – this is a claim, so we sit on our hands.

Let me add this important point:  I have friends who have been or are in the insurance business.  They are good guys.  The issue is not the insurance agents or managers; It is the system that sucks.

PEEVE #2:  MISPLACED MEDIA FOCUS

I am peeved at the media for focusing incessantly on such idiots as Donald Trump, Kanye West, and Elon Musk. 

Why not spend as much time and effort focusing on citizens in this country who are striving to provide for their families and friends?  Such as immigrants to this country from Afghanistan, Ukraine, and to the south.

There are many great stories there, which would help all of us arrive at a more accurate perception of immigrants than what is often portrayed by the media.

So, enough of West, Musk, and Trump!

PEEVE #3:  DIVERTING FROM REAL, COMPETITIVE PROFESSIONAL GOLF

On this subject, I have made my views clear in the past.  As it is said, “crystal.” 

I dislike LIV golf and what it is doing to professional golf in this country and around the world.

It is making a mockery of the goal of competing to win and for prize money.  All LIV does is create exhibitions and pay those who play in such events millions of dollars just for showing up regardless of how they play.

Exhibitions are not necessarily bad in and of themselves.  They are just not my thing.

Especially if the money to fund them comes from the tainted Saudi Arabia Defense Fund.  If other industries do business with that country and with that fund, then they are wrong, too.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Does this mean that I believe the PGA Tour in the U.S.A. and the DP Tour in Europe are perfect?  No.

Both need to up their games, not only for the players and caddies, but for golf fans like me.  And both appear to be doing so.  An acknowledged top golfer, Jack Nicklaus, now retired, made this point yesterday.  He said the PGA Tour needs to continuing to improve its management to assure that all the recent changes work well.

If the improvement actions that have been taken by the PGA and DP are a response to LIV, so be it.

Further, what gets lost in the shuffle of all the controversy is a key, salient fact:  Both the PGA and DP Tours have designed events that produce millions of dollars for worthy charities.

Does LIV?  Absolutely not.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If you want to avoid losing sleep or throwing up, then don’t read a major analysis in the Washington Post.

But, if you want to know the truth about what may be ahead for America, then be informed.  Read it.

The scenarios are grim says writer David Montomery whose by-line appears over a story under this headline:  What Will Happen to America if Trump Wins Again?  Experts Helped Us Game It Out.

Here is how Montgomery started his analysis:

“Imagine it’s January 20, 2025.  Inauguration Day.  The president-elect raises his right hand and begins to recite the oath:  I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear …

“It’s an anti-Trumper’s nightmare, but it could happen:  47 per cent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents want Trump to be the nominee in 2024, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. And if Trump and Joe Biden are the contenders, Trump narrowly edges Biden, 48 to 46 per cent, among registered voters (albeit within the poll’s margin of error).”

To help grasp the consequences of another Trump administration, Mongomery, reports the Post, turned to 21 experts in the presidency, political science, public administration, the military, intelligence, foreign affairs, economics, and civil rights.  They sketched, he says, chillingly plausible chains of potential actions and reactions thatcould unravel the nation.

“’I think it would be the end of the republic,’ says Princeton University professorSean Wilentz, one of the historians President Biden consulted in August about America’s teetering democracy.  ‘It would be a kind of overthrow from within. … It would be a coup of the way we’ve always understood America.”

Based on what these experts described, here’s a summary of the country’s crack-up in three phases as reported by the Post:

• Phase 1:  Trump seizes control of the government and installs super loyalists.  He governs without Senate advice and consent.  He creates a MAGA civil service.
• Phase 2:  Trump deploys the military aggressively at home, while retreating abroad.  As he did in his earlier term, he uses the military to promote his own political power, including the specter of a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., all to honor Trump.  American global leadership is finished — much to Putin’s delight.  Intelligence work is harmed.
• Phase 3:  Political violence and democratic collapse?  It’s possible.  Ideological, racial, and ethnic tensions ramp up.  The bonds that bind the Union loosen.  The chances of civil war increase.

Montgomery concludes by quoting one his contacts:  “After four more years of nihilistic energy like that, the experience of being an American could well have been transformed into something unrecognizable.”

So, prepare yourself.  Read the entire article.  And worry about the future of America if Trump and his minions prevail.  Just as I do.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

To come up with the following question, you would have to be a dedicated golfer who does not have much to do with his or her time other than think about golf rules. 

Or, in this case, an even more obscure topic – what golf scores to post to produce a golf handicap?

Here’s the question (which has troubled me over the years):

Should you have to post golf scores produced in a “match-play game”?  Which is much different from the more-played form – “stroke play.”

I say the best answer is “no.”

Unfortunately, the United States Golf Association disagrees.

Here is what it says:

“Question:  Should match play scores be posted even if you do not hole out on every hole?

“Answer:  Yes.  When a hole is started but a player does not hole out, the player must record their most likely score for handicap purposes. (Rule 3.3, Rules of Handicapping)

“If the match ends with holes left to play and the players continue to play, the actual scores must be posted on every hole played.

“If a match ends with holes left to play and the players do not play the remaining holes, net par should be recorded as the hole scores for the remaining holes (keeping in mind at least 7 or 14 holes must be played for a 9- or 18-hole score to posted).”

Now, for all of us amateur golfers, how’s that for confusion and controversy.

In other words, if you don’t finish a golf hole, make up a score and post that score.  And, note, that golf used to be called “a game of honor.”

Here are a couple ways the situation plays out:

Situation 1:  You are playing in a two-person “best ball” format and your partner makes a putt before you have a chance to do so.  So, you don’t putt and just pick up your ball.  You are supposed to post the score you think would have gotten.

Stupid.

Situation 2:  You are playing in an 18-hole match, but the opposing individual or team beats you before the 18^th hole.  So, you don’t play, say, the last four holes.  You are supposed to post the scores you think you would have gotten.

Again, stupid.

If I was THE final golf rules arbiter – many of my friends would say they are glad I am not – I would rule, DON’T POST SCORES IN MATCH PLAY!

The reasons are that, (a) it is, by design, very different from stroke play, and (b) it specifically involves a very different way of thinking about how to play.  The number of strokes only matters if it affects the match, not your own score.

So, I say, don’t post scores in match play.  Do what the form of competition requires – play to win golf holes, not post a score!

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

While I had what I thought was a good run as a journalist, a state government manager, and a lobbyist, my thoughts on occasion in retirement sometimes go to jobs I could have had – or wish I had.

Two examples:

• I would like to have been one of the persons who decides on names of cars – the names, including the basic brand, and the letters, and names, and numbers under that basic brand.

• I would like to have been a golf commentator on TV.  Then, I could have said stuff like, “He has a lot of work left to do” or, “If he hit it harder, it would have gone farther.”
  
  

Back to car names.  Ever wonder how folks think up the names?  I have.

To do so, you have to figure out a combination of words, letters and numbers, all related to the bottom-line credentials of the vehicles, as well as to the basic question – will the names sell cars?

Note these current letters in car names that stand for something:

• SS – SuperSport
• GL – Base model symbol in most cases
• RL – Road Luxury
• TL – Touring Luxury
• MDX – Medium crossover vehicle
• RDX – Compact crossover vehicle
• R/T – Road and Track
• SL – Sport Light
• ST – Sport Touring
• LE or LTD – Limited Edition
• LS – Limited Series, Luxury Sport, or Luxury Sedan
• GT – Gran Turismo (Italian for grand touring)
• CE – Compact Edition
• CL – Comfort Luxe
• C – Convertible, Coupe, or Compact

Didn’t know much of that.

But, beyond that, what’s in a name?  Here is a summary of what I found using “Mr. Google:”

“Everyone forms a picture of luxury in their mind when they hear the word ‘Lexus.’  But does everyone instantly know the manufacturer behind a Fusion, Veloster, or Challenger?  Maybe not.  That’s why makers of luxury vehicles, such as Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Acura, Mercedes, and Jaguar, use alpha-numeric names.  They want to keep the focus on the brand, not the model.

“The alpha-numeric designations help buyers and sellers identify luxury vehicle classifications.  For example, Mercedes-Benz uses the ‘G’ classification for its family of sport utility vehicles and crossovers. The  ‘G’  stands for Gelaendewagen, a German word that translates loosely to “all-terrain vehicle,” and doesn’t really trip off the tongue.”

So, it’s more than just thinking up cute numbers with numbers that roll off the tongue.  It’s marketing.

Now, on to the golf commentating business.

When it comes to those who call golf on TV, I know what I like and what I don’t like.

For example, lead NBC commentator Paul Azinger does what I consider to be a great job of analyzing golf, including swings and results.  Not just saying something like “good shot” or “bad shot.”

In his day, Johnny Miller was good, too, in part because players didn’t like when he criticized their swings or performance, though he always maintained he said what he said to relate to those watching.

As for Nick Faldo, who just retired from the commentating business to herd cattle on a ranch in Montana, not so much.  To me, he often got caught up in his own awkward sentences, though he also loved the job, which he illustrated when he cried as he completed his last segment a few weeks ago.

Think, too, of sentences uttered by commentators that have become part of golf history.

One of the most famous came from analyst Gary Koch.  When golf pro Tiger Woods made an incredible putt on the iconic 17^th island green at TPC Sawgrass, Koch said this:

“Better than most!”

I often have wondered Koch didn’t say, “Better than anyone else.”  Would have been more accurate.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

My bio which starts off this blog notes one of my jobs in the past – serving as press secretary for an Oregon congressman in his Washington, D.C. office.

It was a privilege to do so.

His name was Les AuCoin, a Democrat, who cut his political teeth in the Oregon Legislature, then moved on to Congress from Oregon’s 1^st Congressional District.

Today, he is retired and lives most of the time in Montana.

All of this came back to mind this week as I read remarks AuCoin made at an event at Pacific University where he graduated.  The occasion was the ceremony to create the AuCoin Archive at the school, as well as the start of the AuCoin Lecture Series.

Here are a few excerpts of what AuCoin said:         

“Sixty-two years ago, I arrived on this campus to do something no one in my family had ever done — I signed in for a college education!  I was the skinny 18-year-old son of a single mom — a waitress in Redmond, Oregon, who had only an 8th-grade education, but big dreams for me.  I was the first male in my extended family to have even finished high school!

“If anyone had told me then I’d be standing here now, doing this, they might have been accused of smoking something a lot stronger than tobacco! 

“So, maybe you can understand why for a guy like me, a day like this could go to my head! Except … that isn’t going to happen! Because I know that the history Pacific University has archived is not mine alone! It’s a 25-year record of idealism and action created by an entire community—especially my staff, family, and friends.

In a reference to his staff:  “These remarkable people embody a virtue as old as the American idea … the belief that governments are instituted to protect the rights of the otherwise unprotected and to be faithful at all times to the first principle of democracy— ‘Consent of the Governed,’ an ideal that has lately come under assault.

“We’re living in fraught times.  Hannah Arendt, the political philosopher, wrote something years ago that describes part of our present difficulty. ‘The ideal pawn for a dictator,’ she said, ‘is not those who are committed to an ideology, but rather people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction…and between true and false…no longer exists.’

“Let’s each of us respond to our times by pushing forward our hopes and ideals, and never giving up, regardless of the difficulty. With so much on the line, let us not become ‘summer soldiers’ or ‘sunshine patriots.’  Let us be what Ulysses spoke of in the epic poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. 

               
“Here’s my favorite stanza.  Someday, I hope it is said of me: 

“Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but still strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find … and not to yield.”

My own memories of my time working for AuCoin remain strong today.  For one thing, on the staff, I joined a college classmate, Gary Conkling, who was AuCoin’s chief of staff in D.C. and who later joined me as a partner in our lobbying and public relations firm, Conkling Fiskum & McCormick.

And, the McCormick?  He was – and is – Pat McCormick, who ran AuCoin’s Oregon office and became, for me, a life-long friend, a relationship we cemented when we both worked for our company.

Good times?  Yes.

But, also as AuCoin said very well above, it was a time when government stood for something positive.  Not perfect.  But positive.

Nor was AuCoin perfect.  He was just…positive.  The word service meant something to him – and I hope it did for me, as well.  It was my pleasure to deal with the media on behalf of AuCoin, both editors and reporters  in Washington, D.C., as well as those back home in Oregon.

AuCoin properly cites differences between his days in Congress (and mine, by extension) and what goes on in politics today.  The positive character of government back then is a far cry from the depths to which political activity has sunk today.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Oregon is famous for its “public records” law.  Properly so in the name of good government.

I am very familiar with the law based on my days as a State of Oregon employee, as a state lobbyist, and, now, as a member of an Oregon commission.

The notion of the law is simple:  Every record is public unless you can fit it into one of the exemptions built into the law.

As much as I am a believer in public records, including the law, it creates a puzzle for me. 

This:

What I often do to create a document on my own laptop — not state government property – as one way to help me think through issues more completely than would be the case without words on paper.

As a one-time newspaper reporter and as a person who enjoys writing, I often think that writing results, at least for me, in better thinking about a particular issue or situation.

Then, is what I create a “public record?”

Some friends, attorneys, have told me that the answer might be “yes.”  If it is, I disagree.  Strongly.

That’s because the document I have created is only for me.  No one else.

But, of course, if I send it on to a someone in government, yes, I have created a public record.

Public records law is well covered in the Oregon Revised Statutes.  The emphasis, as stated above, is that every record created by government is public unless the information can fit one of several exemptions in law.  Such as trade secret information submitted to government by businesses, information about the exact status of collective bargaining negotiations, the estimated value of property the state may be intent on selling or acquiring, information on the status of criminal investigations, and others.

So, with this emphasis – everything is public unless specifically exempt – leave my laptop scribbles to me unless I do something formal with them.  Please.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Recent media reports, as well as background intelligence I have gathered, leads me to believe this:

There is a chance for a Republican governor in Oregon this time around.  A chance.  Not assured.  Am I betting on it?  No.

If the Republican, Christine Drazan, were to win, she would be the first Republican governor in more in nearly 40 years.

In the spirt of full disclosure, I worked for the last one, the late Victor Atiyeh.

Overall, the governor’s race in Oregon has claimed national headlines as “one to watch.”  It has experienced a variety of twists and turns in the last few days, such as the following:

FINALLY, A NEW INDEPENDENT POLL:  Under this headline – “Christine Drazan, Tina Kotek neck-and-neck in race for Oregon governor” — the Oregonian newspaper wrote a story on a new poll done by a reputable pollster, one not linked to any side in the upcoming election.

The story started this way:

“About 32 per cent of likely Oregon voters said they would vote for Drazan if the election were today, while 31 per cent said they would vote for Kotek, according to the poll conducted by Portland firm DHM Research. “Betsy Johnson, a longtime Democrat lawmaker who is running unaffiliated, received 18 per cent support.

“That puts Drazan, the former House Republican leader, and Kotek, the former House Speaker, in a statistical tie for first place given the poll’s margin of error, plus or minus 4 per cent.  About 15 per cent of voters remain undecided in the poll of 600 likely Oregon voters that was conducted on Friday and Saturday last week.”

The Oregonian had it right when it wrote that “the results are a boon for Drazan,” who, if she won, would become the first Republican to hold the office since 1987.

Further, earlier this month, The Cook Political Report changed its outlook of the race in Oregon from “lean Democrat” to a “tossup.”

One more interesting fact in the poll is that Johnson is not doing better.  Some early observers thought she could have a chance to win.  If the new poll is to be believed, she doesn’t.  But, still, 18 per cent is a high mark for a third-party candidate.

INTELLIGENCE FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL:  Through a couple confidential sources, I have gleaned this:

• Drazan could have difficulty going above about 32 per cent.
• Kotek could begin solidifying her Democrat base, especially in the three counties around Portland, which means she may succeed like many Democrats have in the past – winning metropolitan Portland as an offset to rural Oregon.
• Republicans around the state are succeeding so that Democrats will not be able to maintain super-majorities in either the House or the Senate.  If the tallies come true, that would increase prospects for bi-partisan action in a legislature not known for it. 

THE OREGONIAN’S PROFILES OF JOHNSON AND KOTEK:  The Oregonian is running profiles of the three gubernatorial candidates, the first focusing on Johnson and the second on Kotek.  Drazan’s is coming.

In the articles, Johnson comes across as a skeptic of government, which, to me, is good.  Skeptical.  Not cynical.

That’s what government needs to force agencies to justify the rationale for investments of state tax dollars.

Johnson also comes across as a legislator with a record for caring for her home ground, either the Scappoose area in Columbia County or the area where she grew up, the Metolius River area in Central Oregon.

There could be two views of such actions.  First, the positive notion is that she tended to the affairs of area where she lives or has lived.  Second, some could say she took care of her own interests, not the interests of all Oregonians.

The profile on Kotek highlights her long-standing linkage of public employee unions, as well as her efforts to deal with Oregon’s housing issues.  Still, she avers that she will be independent if she is elected governor where she will be in charge of implementing laws she helped pass in the Legislature.

I suggest that the profiles of Johnson and Kotek are worth reading, as will be the the one on Drazan soon.

So, as gubernatorial and legislative campaigns come down to the end, it’s worth paying attention.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have often said that, in retirement, I have a lot of time on my hands. 

Which is why I use some of that time to play golf or volunteer at golf tournaments around the Northwest.

It’s also why I have time every day to read the Oregonian newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.  I am a newspaper junkie.

There, I run across strange comparisons.

One occurred this morning.

It arose in a column by David Von Drehle in the Washington Post and a story by Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post.

Here it is:

FROM VON DREHLE:  “Sooner or later, the leader makes a truly bad decision that springs reality from the prison of lies.  For Vladmir Putin, that bad decision is the invasion of Ukraine.  

“All of Russia is not as stupid as this decision would suggest — but the Russians who correctly perceived the patriotism of the Ukrainian people had no way to warn Putin.  The Russians who knew about the weakness of their army had no avenue to inform Putin.  The Russians who understood the latent strength of the West weren’t welcome around Putin.  The Russians familiar with the unpreparedness of the civilian reserves weren’t consulted by Putin.  All the leader heard was the groveling echo of his own misconceptions.

“That Putin is now blaming the sycophants he created for failing to bend reality to match his delusions was predictable.  One must be alert when walking in Moscow these days, given the hazard of plunging bureaucrats tossed from windows and chucked down stairways.”

FROM DAWSEY:  “As president, Donald Trump weighed bombing drug labs in Mexico after one of his leading public health officials came into the Oval Office, wearing a dress uniform, and said such facilities should be handled by putting “lead to target” to stop the flow of illicit substances across the border into the United States.

“He raised it several times, eventually asking a stunned Defense Secretary Mark Esper whether the United States could indeed bomb the labs,” according to a new book by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. White House officials said the official, Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir, often wore his dress uniform for meetings with Trump, which confused him.

“The response from White House aides was not to try to change Trump’s view, but to consider asking Giroir not to wear his uniform to the Oval Office anymore,” Haberman writes in “Confidence Man,” an extensive book about Trump’s time in New York and as president.

“The 607-page book, which has long been awaited by many of Trump’s aides, is set to be published Tuesday.  A copy was obtained by The Washington Post.  The book details unusual and erratic interactions between Trump and world leaders, members of Congress and his own aides, along with behind-the-scenes accounts of his time as a businessman.”

Why did this comparison cross my mind?

At least a couple reasons.

1. Trump admires Putin and his ability to rise above any advice to do only what he wants to do at all times.  Thus, invading Ukraine. 
2. Like Putin, Trump was his own person in office, never accepting advice or counsel from anyone other than sycophants, like Giroir, who wanted only to please Trump.

Trump was in his cloister.  Apart from rational discussion about any public policy.  If he thought it and if he said, then it was right no matter countervailing evidence.

The fact that Trump hated to read anything, including the daily intelligence brief created for all presidents, only made his independence more dangerous.

And that’s exactly what we don’t need in the Oval Office – another term for Trump, the epitome of a narcissist.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

It doesn’t take a brilliant mind to grasp the reality of this blog headline. 

Thus, my mind qualifies.

If, in government, “public discourse” means the ability to have reasonable discussions about pressing public policy challenges, then we appear to have lost that ability – in Oregon and nationally.

The loss applies to both Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans repudiate all things government, led by the clown, Donald Trump. 

Democrats endorse all things government, led, on one hand, by President Joe Biden, and, on another hand, by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who strikes me as the Democrat’s answer to Trump).

Wall Street Journal commentator Gerard Baker, retired executive editor of the newspaper, made these points in an on-line column this morning.  [In the spirit of full disclosure, Baker is not my favorite columnist as he writes in retirement.  But, that does not mean that I don’t read – or sometimes agree with – what he writes…which, come to think of it, relates to what appears below, the need for improved discourse.

The sub-head of Baker’s piece:  “Our leaders of both parties now seem free to utter things completely at odds with reality and logic.”

He continued:

“If I had to pick the most worrying characteristic of our current dystopia, I would choose the unsettling disconnect between the seriousness of the challenges we face and the public discourse that is supposed to be addressing them.

“A perilous war rages in Europe, as a failing tyrant with nuclear weapons launches desperate new waves of cannon fodder against a nation whose defense we are financing and reinforcing.  In Asia, the emerging Chinese superpower is in the throes of a significant economic and social upheaval that may propel it toward the full-scale confrontation it increasingly threatens with Taiwan, an island whose people we are pledged to defend.

“At home we are caught in the worst of economic traps — as the Federal Reserve inflicts unavoidable monetary pain to kill the surging inflation incurred by its avoidable mistake.  Meanwhile the global economy seems to be sliding into a potentially serious recession, and financial markets are eroding our wealth at a dizzying pace.”

At a time when Baker says there is a “need for quiet, calm deliberation,” the current conversation sounds “like the game room of a psychiatric institution.”

“This isn’t a partisan point,” Baker adds.  “Both sides are only too eager to point out the mania in the other’s rhetorical obsessions but deny the delusion in their own.  So secure are they in the knowledge that their supporters will stand by whatever they say that our leaders now seem free to utter things completely at odds with reality and logic.”

Current problems in public discourse go well beyond political rhetoric, Baker says.

“Our larger discourse is dominated by cultural authorities who want us to believe things that the human mind rebels against — that there is no such thing as biological sex, that the way to fight past discrimination is with present discrimination, that not punishing crime is the way to prevent crime, that words can mean whatever they tell us they mean.  These are the nostrums of the dominant progressives in our culture, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that conservatives aren’t also susceptible to impossible ideas and implausible theories.”

Further, modern technology has created platforms that elevate extreme voices.  Look only at Trump and his minions or Ocasio-Cortez and her’s.

Baker concludes: 

“It’s inescapable that part of the answer lies in the collapse of the traditional institutions of authority.  The stability of the two-parent family, the primacy of faith and the cohesion of a wider community not only conferred an order on people’s lives but established a larger sovereignty of truth on them.  Loving but firm parental leadership, the eternal verities of religion, the obligations to a wider social unit of shared values imposed a structure of epistemic guardrails.

“It is not that this structure constrained us all to believe the same things, religiously, politically or otherwise, but it established the prior understanding that there is such a thing as a higher truth that mocks propositions and ideas that defy it.”

This is a good summary of what bothers me about the current state of politics.  Lying comes naturally to those in public office, as well as to many voters.

Seemingly, there is no middle ground.  No ability.  Not just to talk, but to LISTEN to what others have to say and consider whether what they say raises questions about your own viewpoint.

That’s what middle ground is – the area where consensus and agreement can occur.

And it appears to be unalterably lost in politics today, a sad commentary.

So, I say to those running for election and to those voting in the election, bring me middle ground!

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Does the status of Oregon’s death penalty factor in to your decision on how to vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election?

For me, it doesn’t.  For some others, it might.

The reason is that what Oregon’s governor thinks about the death penalty affects whether that penalty will go into effect here.

Though the death penalty is law in Oregon, no individual has been put to death here for about 25 years.

The reason:  Two governors – John Kitzhaber and Kate Brown – have declared a moratorium on use of the most extreme penalty under law, death.  Both were unalterably opposed to the death penalty and expressed their view with the moratorium.  They just said they would not preside over implementation of the law.

So, the question arises, with a new governor taking office in 2023, what will happen to the death penalty?

For the answer, I rely on one of the best journalistic enterprises in Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).  In the spirit of full disclosure, I represented OPB when I worked as a lobbyist and it was a pleasure to do so.  My old firm still holds OPB as a client.

So, what did OPB write in its on-line edition?  This.

“For more than a decade, Oregon governors have placed a moratorium on capital punishment, despite a long-standing, voter-approved constitutional amendment that allows the state to kill people convicted of the most serious crimes.

“Oregon’s next governor has the power to decide whether to maintain the moratorium of their predecessors, or revoke it, opening up the possibility of the state carrying out death sentences once more.

“’As long as the death penalty remains a possibility, there’s always the possibility of an execution,’ says Jeff Ellis, director of the Oregon Capital Resource Center, which assists attorneys representing people sentenced to death.

OPB asked all three gubernatorial candidates:  If elected governor, would you continue or repeal the current moratorium on the death penalty?  Why?

The three candidates responded in writing. Their complete, unedited answers were carried by OPB and are reprinted below.

Former Oregon House minority leader Christine Drazan, the Republican candidate for governor, indicated she would lift the moratorium, but not approve every execution:

“I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but the death penalty was put in place by Oregon voters.  I will follow the law by reviewing cases on a case-by-case basis, which is my duty as governor.  Rather than setting aside the law, I will act based on the facts and fulfill my duty within the confines of my conscience.”

Former speaker of the Oregon House, Tina Kotek, who is running as a Democrat for governor, said she would keep the moratorium in place:

“Oregon has not followed through on the death penalty in over 25 years, and as governor, I would continue the current moratorium.  I am personally opposed to the death penalty because of my religious beliefs.”

Former Democrat State Senator Betsy Johnson, who is running as an unaffiliated candidate, said she would allow the state to carry out executions:

“As governor, I will enforce Oregon’s death penalty in cases where a judge or jury deems it appropriate for a heinous crime.  Oregonians have twice voted on and affirmed our death penalty.  It’s time for liberal politicians to stop trying to overturn it or subvert it by letting dangerous criminals out of prison.”

Recent changes by the Legislature and rulings by the Oregon Supreme Court have resulted in fewer people on Oregon’s death row. Since 2019, the number of people sentenced to die in Oregon declined from 28 to 20, according to the Oregon Department of Corrections.

Oregonians, based  on voting records, have mixed views on capital punishment.  It has been both banned and approved over the years.

Voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1984, once again adopting capital punishment.  Since then, two people in Oregon have been put to death.  Others have waited for execution dates that never came.

In 2019, Oregon lawmakers voted to re-define and narrow the types of offenses that constitute aggravated murder, the only charge that carries a death sentence.  As a result, capital offenses are limited to people convicted of murdering a law-enforcement officer, carrying out a terrorist attack that kills at least two people, murdering a child younger than 14, or killing someone in prison while serving time for a murder conviction.

Even if the moratorium in Oregon was lifted, experts say executions would not resume immediately because, in the cases of prisioners now on death row, appeals have not run their course.

Finally, my view:  I do not support the death penalty because, over the years around the country, mistakes have been made – and, obviously, there is no way to recover from those mistakes.  True, gruesome crimes deserve a severe punishment, but, for me, life in prison without parole constitutes that just punishment.

A friend of mine, who once served as Oregon’s chief justice added weight to this view when he said that the cost of keeping someone in prison for life did not add up to what the cost would be of appeals in death penalty cases. 
There are reasons other than money to hold views on the death penalty, but the former chief’s analysis was compelling for me.   

Now, as for voting for governor later this fall, positions on the death penalty, at most, will be a secondary or tertiary issue for me.  As I decide how to vote, I’ll care about the entire records of the three candidates, not any “single issue.”