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 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 remember a few years ago when none other than Jack Nicklaus said he had a solution to golf’s “distance problem.”

Just change the golf ball, Nicklaus said, so that it would not travel as far as it did then – or as it does now.

His suggestion was met mostly with disdain, if only because golf ball manufacturers were against dialing back their technology.  Plus, many players wanted to continue trying to hit the ball farther – and farther.  Call it bomb and gauge.

Why was Nicklaus advocating golf balls going a shorter distance?

Pro golfers hitting the golf ball prodigious distances make some courses outdated.  At least for the pros.  Not, of course, for us rank amateurs.

There have been other suggestions to limit golf distance, but George Peper, editor of Links Magazine, came with a good one in his most recent column for publication.

In short form, his idea was this:  The 50 per cent solution—don’t just limit the distance of clubs, limit the number of them.

Here is how his column started:

“So, it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:  Don’t simply limit the length of clubs; limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.”

It’s no more outlandish, Peper contends, than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

In fact, Peper adds, “the seven-club set would be a bonanza for manufacturers in that they’d be able to create all-new products to sell us. I’m talking about genuine hybrids— drivers that may be played with confidence from the fairway and putters that can double as chippers.  There would also be an imperative to develop new shafts— whippier ones.”

More from Peper:

“While a seven-club set might not totally address the distance dilemma on the PGA Tour, it would go a long way (no pun intended) and certainly would make tournament golf way more fun to watch.  Think about it.  Most pros would likely carry a driving club, five irons/wedges, and a putter.

“So, Bryson DeChambeau would still be able to blast his colossal drives, but since his next longest club likely would be a 5-iron, he’d have to hit the hell out of it to reach a 600-yard par five—either that or punch a driver off the deck—and wouldn’t that be fun to watch!

“Just imagine the artistry the pros would show us if they were called upon to use the full measure of their athletic talent rather than lean on an assortment of crutches.  I’m thinking about what we all saw at Augusta last year, Jon Rahm skipping a ball across the 16th-hole pond for a practice-round ace, or Bubba Watson’s Wednesday whimsey this year at the Waste Management Phoenix Open, hitting the green at the 167-yard 16th with a flick-wristed driver.  These guys have jaw-dropping talent—we just don’t get to see it as often as we should.”

If golf were played with seven clubs, Peper says:

• It would be simpler to learn, less bewildering and intimidating to new players.  The “beginner set” would be everyone’s set.
• It would be less expensive.  Getting oneself equipped with a standard set would cost less.  About half as much.
• Play would move more quickly because decisions about which club to hit would come more easily.
• Carrying one’s bag would be less physically taxing, so more people would do it, a positive both for personal health and fitness and for the global environment, as fewer motorized carts would be needed.
• The distance issue would die out—no further yardage would need to be added to courses.  Courses would save on maintenance expenses, further reducing the cost of the game.
• Professional tournament golf would become much more compelling to watch.
• The rest of us would become more creative, imaginative, self-reliant, and knowledgeable golfers.
• We would all continue to play under one set of rules.

Okay, pursuing Peper’s good idea, I thought this afternoon about which seven clubs I would carry – well, I could only come up with six, so I’ll be one short.  Here is my list:

1. A three-wood
2. A three-hybrid
3. A six-hybrid
4. A seven-iron
5. A 52-degree wedge
6. A putter

One other virtue of this revolves around money.  With only six or seven clubs, I could buy two sets – one for home in Salem, Oregon, and another for our winter abode in La Quinta, California – and basically pay the cost of one 14-club set.

See, always thinking!

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 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.

One test of our humanity as Americans is how we treat refugees, including those from Afghanistan.

Surely, the U.S. exit from that country was mis-handled several months ago, but, still, many refugees from that country are arriving in America every week.  And Americans are stepping up to care for them.

So much so that the Wall Street Journal carried a piece on the issue written by Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

I repeat excerpts here, while also noting that the City of Salem has developed a solid humanitarian record when it comes to Afghan refugees.  More about that later in this blog; first quotes from Pletka.

“For months after the painful U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, I tried to find some substantive way to aid Afghan refugee families in the United States — particularly in Northern Virginia, where I live.  

“A couple of weeks ago, a friend introduced me to the Immigrant and Refugee Outreach Center (IROC) in McLean.  IROC, in turn, introduced me to a newly arrived family of seven — siblings and in-laws, aged 14 to 30, the proud owners of five chairs and three beds.  Almost no English.

“An apartment was rented by a family acquaintance, they told me, but there was no lease in evidence.  No phones, no computers, no blankets, no coats, no boots, no sneakers, and no pots, pans, or food (friends were bringing them meals).”

This family, Pletka writes, is in no way unique. 

“The children’s father stayed in Afghanistan to look after his ailing father.  Their mother stayed with him.  The children spent a few months on a military base and left in search of a forever home.  They have three months’ rent from the federal government, possibly an additional stipend, and need to get into schools and find jobs.  They have a small group of friends, mostly an extended circle of Afghans who have been here a little longer.

“There are hundreds, probably thousands, of Americans helping such refugees — inviting them in, feeding them, helping them orient, driving them, doing what they can.

“Here’s my story:  After spending a bunch of cash online, I realized this family was going to need more help.  I’m not much of a neighborhood association type, but I used our local e-mail group to reach out to my wider community.  I explained the situation and the family‘s needs, and I asked people to pitch in what they could.

“It took only moments, literally.  E-mails flooded in.  Sheets, blankets, pots, pans, mirrors, rice, a bike, mattresses, couches, clothes, shoes — you name it, the offers piled into my inbox.  My front door was overflowing with generous drop-offs, new and sometimes lightly used.  A few neighbors went out and shopped, texting from Walmart to ask about sizes.  Others ordered on-line and sent things to my home addressed to ‘Afghan Family.’  My husband and kids joined me in making deliveries.”

Stories such as this also occur in Salem every day.

It all started when the church my wife and I attend in Salem, Salem Alliance, agreed to start a refugee-helping program that came to be called “Salem For Refugees.” 

Here is a summary of Salem For Refugees’ mission and vision:

• To bring people and resources together to empower refugees to thrive.
• To see all refugees in Salem as valued, thriving, contributing members of our community.
• We believe that the relationships between refugees who resettle in Salem and the volunteers and community members who welcome them are transformative for all parties.
• We believe that the role of Salem For Refugees is to help our new neighbors discover the tools and resources they need to become confident in making their own decisions and achieving their own goals as they re-settle in Salem.
• We believe our community is made stronger as people of faith and people of goodwill work together towards a common mission of welcoming our new neighbors.

Refugee re-settlement has been taking place in the state of Oregon since 1975.  Initially, the Salem community helped to welcome many refugees, particularly from Vietnam and Cambodia.  But, for the past 30 years, all refugees who were chosen for re-settlement in the state of Oregon, were re-settled in the Portland metro area. 

Due to the rising costs of housing in Portland, the Re-Settlement Agency, Catholic Charities, expanded the scope to include the City of Salem.

In October 2016, Salem Leadership Foundation (SLF), in partnership with Catholic Charities and Salem Alliance Church, hosted a series of lunch meetings called “Welcoming Our New Neighbors.”  The purpose of these meetings was to bring together the various groups and organizations that were seeking to care for refugees and explore how the efforts could be coordinated.

The good news is that Salem Alliance caught the vision from the beginning and provided significant start-up funding, office space, facility use, vehicles, volunteers, and more.  SLF stepped up to be the fiscal sponsor of Salem For Refugees, providing bookkeeping, accounting, organizational coaching, and invaluable community connections.

​Salem For Refugees has welcomed hundreds of refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers from a variety of countries including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

And, speaking of the vision, my wife, Nancy, caught i, especially in regard recently to Afghan refugees coming to America – and Salem – for a new start on life.

Nancy has made it a recent practice to buy and donate food, furniture, clothes, and other household goods for Afghan families.  Part of the task – a good part – was to recognize the cultural differences between Afghans and their new neighbors…cultural differences that could be recognized in the donations of food, clothing, and furniture.   

By extension, it makes me feel good to see Nancy’s dedication and to note the good work Salem For Refugees has done for all kinds of refugees, including Afghans.

It’s a good news story of putting feet to faith on the ground in Salem, Oregon.

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 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.

A column by Wall Street Journal writer Gerald Seib yesterday got me to thinking about a very solid piece of advice to me from one of my former partners, Pat McCormick.

To emphasize the importance of the lost art of listening, he said this:

“God gave you two ears and one mouth, so spend twice as much time listening as talking.”

I often think about this sage advice – as well as try to follow it – during a time when, to repeat a phrase above, “listening is a lost art.”

Apply that to politics and you get the picture.  Those who claim to represent us usually spend much more time talking than listening.

So, here from columnist Seib are excerpts of a post that appeared under this headline:

A Listening Deficit Plagues America, From 2020 Vote to January 6 to Vaccines

“As this election year begins to unfold, Americans aren’t merely arguing about politics.  It’s increasingly clear they can’t even agree on what they’re arguing about.

“You want to debate political violence?  People on the left think instantly of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021.  People on the right counter with the 2020 George Floyd summer of unrest.

“Refusal to accept election results?  On the left, that’s clearly a reference to former President Donald Trump’s false claims the 2020 election was stolen from him.  On the right, it might be a reference to Democrats’ attempts to oust Trump from office after 2016, or Democrat Stacey Abrams’ refusal to concede her loss in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election.

“Dangerous social trends?  On the left, that’s a reference to rising racism and anti-Semitism, and anti-vaccination trolling.  On the right, it’s about woke and cancel cultures run rampant, and vaccine mandates.”

In short, Seib argues, people are talking past one another.  And, he adds, it isn’t happening only in Washington, or in political circles, but increasingly within communities and even within families.

“Worse yet, people with differing views today don’t merely disagree; often, they can’t even comprehend how those on the other side could possibly think the way they do.  

“Yet, ironically, the problem isn’t so much that Americans aren’t talking enough.  They’re talking plenty.  A significant part of the problem is that they’ve stopped listening.

“That is to say, too often Americans aren’t listening to people on the other side closely enough to understand WHY they think what they think. Instead, the default position, fueled by the shouting on social media, has become to move immediately to anger, and then yell:  You’re just crazy.”

When I was a lobbyist a few years ago, I often worried that I would fall victim to the tendency to talk too much.  So, before meetings with legislators, as I walked down the Capitol hallways to meet with them, I told myself – “listen more than you talk.”

It was good advice then as a lobbyist.  It is good advice today in your family, your church, your neighborhood, with friends, or on the golf course.

Seib cites a consultant who says this: “Over the last several decades, we have become more and more entrenched in our own tribes, and those tribes are increasingly defined by what they are against.  As soon as I think of someone else as ‘the other,’ as a threat, they are no longer worth listening to.  We have gotten this almost religious fervor.”

So, today, I suggest that we need to find listening again as a key part of our character.  Who knows – if we all spent more time listening than talking, we’d be the better for it.  And, step-by-step, the character of our commitment could even improve political discourse.

Seib adds:

“Such steps can’t, by themselves douse a national fire of political anger—especially when much of it comes from people unwilling to try listening.  Getting Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs to come to the proverbial table and engage in that conversation is a tremendous challenge.  The reason is the lack of trust. The very problem we are attempting to solve by seeing our humanity across differences is preventing that solution.”  

So, with me, listen more than talk.

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 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.

At the start of any Oregon legislative session – such as the short one that begins today in Salem – I always think of the questions lawmakers should ask as they consider proposals that come before them.

So, in this blog, I “repeat “the questions, which pertain to any aspect of the State of Oregon budget or Oregon’s statutory law.  I use the word “repeat” because I have cited these questions before, usually before any legislative session.

First, however, this context for the coming legislative session.

Democrats are in charge everywhere in Salem – in the House, in the Senate, in the Governor’s Office and in all other statewide offices.

In the House and the Senate, they enjoy super-majority margins of control, which means they can pass any bill – including new taxes — without any Republican votes.  However, they do not enjoy what have come to be called “quorum-proof” margins of control, which means Republicans can walk out if they view no other alternative to oppose legislation they believe imperils rural Oregon.

In other words, the “two-Oregons” issue – urban versus rural and the reverse – is alive and well in our state.

This session also will be marked by the final time Salem Senator Peter Courtney will hold the gavel because he has said he will not run for senator again.  There will be a new speaker of the House, Corvallis Representative Dan Rayfield because the previous speaker, Tina Kotek, left the job to run for governor.  Of course, Kate Brown remains in the Governor’s Office for his last legislative session because she, too, will not run again because of the two-term limit.

So, are my proposed questions:

1.  What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?  Legislators should make sure they reserve time for this basic question.

2.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play?  Ask the question without an advance commitment for a “yes” or “no.”

3.  If there is a role for government, what does the state expect to get for the money it spends — in other words, what is the expected return on investment? 

4.  How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for money to fund its operations.

If legislators would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better legislature and better results.

This is even more true when you consider what’s in store in this every-other-year short session.

Here is the way Oregon Public Broadcasting described it:

“The 35-day, every-two-years short session of the Oregon Legislature that starts Tuesday is primarily intended for budget adjustments.  But majority Democrats have unveiled ambitious policy ideas, including plans to reduce housing costs, improve access to child-care, and improve Oregonians’ job prospects.

“Can Democrats push through their crowded progressive agenda?

“Will Republicans leave town to block votes on items they oppose? Many of the key players have changed, and that could change the dynamics in Salem.

“There’s a bill to allow Oregonians to pump their own gas. Lawmakers are also expected to consider proposals to change administrative rules preventing farm workers from earning overtime, and to send a one-time state stimulus payment to front-line workers who were employed throughout the pandemic.”

So, prepare to watch, with whatever interest you can summon, to this month of government action.  I will, still being glad that I just that – a watcher – not a participant as I was as a lobbyist for many years.

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 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 are a golfer – full disclosure, I am – you no doubt have heard the phrase, “It’s a links golf course.”

But, the phrase is hard to define.  In part, this is because “links golf” is one of those “you know it when you see it” issues.

So, this morning I read my new on-line version of Links Magazine and the editors there performed a useful service.  They defined the term “links golf.”  This:

“The British Golf Museum defines a links course as ‘a stretch of land near the coast characterized by undulating terrain, often associated with dunes, infertile sandy soil, and indigenous grasses such as marram, sea lyme, and the fescues and bents which, when properly managed, produce the fine-textured, tight turf for which links are famed.’”

There you have it.  Now you know.  And perhaps even more than you want to know.

The magazine added that there are not many real links courses in America.  Most of the courses that meet the “links” definition are in Scotland and Ireland, or elsewhere in Britain.

Of course, there are imposters in the U.S, some of which take the name links and don’t do justice to it.

Links Magazine identified the following REAL links tracks – with full credit to the magazine for the following excerpts (with the additional point being that several of real tracks are in Oregon).

Bandon Dunes:  When Bandon Dunes’s designer, Scotsman David McLay Kidd, heard that there was gorse growing on the site of this first of the now five 18-holes courses at Bandon, he knew it might be possible to create a true links course there.  The site turned out to be everything he’d hoped for—and the result of Kidd’s work there has been lauded ever since.

Pacific Dunes:  Just along the coast from its Bandon Dunes sibling, Tom Doak’s design at Pacific Dunes similarly makes the most of its seaside setting.  Its rumpled fairways, tall marram grasses, and deep pot bunkers scream “links” from start to finish.

Old Macdonald:  Doak was back with Jim Urbina to pay homage to C.B. Macdonald at this third of Bandon’s links trio.  Holes with names like “Biarritz,” “Redan,” “Leven,” and “Alps” owe their lineage to their Scottish ancestors.

The Sheep Ranch:  Coore and Crenshaw’s contribution to Bandon’s bevy of links beauties just debuted and it’s a stunner, with more gorse than you can shake a niblick at and a tumbling, expansive seaside setting.

Cabot Links:  On the other side of North America, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canadian course designer Rod Whitman did his nation proud at this spectacular “New Scottish” links masterpiece.

Cabot Cliffs:  Though situated on higher ground than its neighbor, the Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw design at Cabot Cliffs is still every inch a pure links experience.  The closing three holes along the edge of the Gulf of St. Lawrence recall the Highlands at every step.

After having the great experience of taking several trips to Scotland – the homeland of my wife’s parents – I have come to love links golf.  And I agree that the courses in Bandon are not just an approximation of links golf; they are the real deal.

For me, one feature of links golf is this:  I use my 7-iron more than any other club.  Around but not on a green, I often use it to chip.  Also, from about 150-yards or so out, I might use my 7-iron to get the ball running over the usually hard links turf.

I remember the time U.S. golfer Phil Mickelson won The Open at Muirfield in Scotland.  And, at the time, he said he was glad he finally learned how to play links golf.

I also have come across some imposters, one of which is Chambers Bay near Olympia, Washington.  I only have played the course twice, but I continue to be amazed that the United States Golf Association chooses the site for some of its major tournaments. 

From a links golf perspective, I found Chambers Bay to be tricked up and not worth playing.

So, thanks again to Links Magazine for helping to define links golf.  I will continue playing such courses whenever I can, which means, I guess, traveling to Bandon, Nova Scotia, or Scotland.

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 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.

Like the headline on this blog, political campaign finance itself is a muddy topic.  Not understood fully by most people, including me.

Therefore, what follows below, until the last paragraph, is how Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) described the current state of affairs in Oregon.  I feel free to use this material, with attribution of course, because OPB was one of my best clients when I worked as a lobbyist. 

Plus, the OPB professionals with whom and for whom I worked were routinely upbeat and positive, perhaps reflecting OPB’s top-level standing as a reliable news and public affairs source in the Northwest.  They would not mind be cribbing from their solid work.

So, here, from OPB:

After talks between left-leaning organizations broke down, three groups have filed proposals for reining in political spending in Oregon.

Weeks after they came to an impasse over how the state should crack down on money in politics, left-leaning organizations are signaling they might just fight it out at the ballot box.

Two groups that are often aligned filed dueling ballot measure proposals for how to place limits on the state’s permissive campaign finance laws.  Those proposals — one affiliated with public-sector labor and advocacy groups, the other from a private-sector union — join a series of three proposals filed earlier this month by good government groups.

The upshot is that six separate ideas for cracking down on political giving in the state have now been floated for the November 2022 ballot.  Many, if not most, will die before they reach voters, but even two competing campaign finance measures next year could create confusion that advocates have been hoping to avoid.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that places no limits on how much an individual or entity can give to candidates, a fact that has helped campaign spending explode in recent elections.

Meanwhile, voters have signaled they are eager to tamp down on money’s role in politics.  A ballot measure that altered the state Constitution to formally allow limits on campaign giving passed in a landslide last year.

Left-leaning groups that pushed the Constitutional change met frequently in private this year, attempting to come up with a consensus framework for new regulations.  Those talks broke down in early December.  Now different factions are coming out with their own ideas, which they say need to be filed right away to have a chance to collect enough signatures in time for a July deadline.

Those proposals include many similarities to campaign finance regulations that good government groups floated in their own ballot measure filings in early December.  They create a complex system of caps on how much various entities and political committees can donate to candidates and causes.  They would also require campaigns to disclose top donors in political ads, and force so-called “dark money” groups to reveal their financial backers if they are politically active.  And the proposed measures would create a system of public financing that would use tax dollars to bolster the campaigns of candidates who agreed to only accept donations of $250 or less per person.

But the new proposals also contain key differences from the framework good government groups have floated.  They are less strict when it comes to penalties for breaking campaign finance limits.

They also contain exemptions to the kinds of financial backers advocacy groups must disclose.  Some of those groups had worried they would lose out on crucial funding from charitable foundations if they were forced to name those foundations in connection with their political activities.

Whether any proposal lands before voters next year is hard to predict.  To qualify for the November 2022 ballot, a ballot measure campaign needs to collect 112,020 by July 8.  But even to get to the point of collecting signatures, advocates of campaign finance limits are likely to face challenges from opponents about what ballot language should look like, a process that can take months.

Once that’s done, collecting signatures amid the pandemic has proven costly and difficult.

So, based on OPB’s reporting above, my advice is not to hold your breath waiting for campaign finance limits to be legal in Oregon.  First, some voters could consider political giving to be a form of “free speech” (and even the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that way in the past); second, getting to the ballot will be a major challenge, given signature collection challenges, especially amidst the pandemic; and, winning at the ballot could prove to be an expensive challenge.

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 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 was bound to happen.  The only question was when.

What is the “it?”

A major media story on the chief of staff for President Joseph Biden. 

Chiefs of staff for a president always garner major coverage at some point because it is not an exaggeration to say that a chief of staff is one of the most powerful positions in the federal government.  Perhaps even the #2 person in terms of power and influence.

I always have been very interested in chief of staff positions, having seen some good ones in Washington, D.C. and several who failed miserably – and a number of the failures worked – or, shall we say, worshipped — at the feet of Donald Trump.

In this connection, I recommend an excellent book on this subject – The Gatekeepers:  How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.  It is by Chris Whipple and, for political junkies like myself, it is worth reading as a detailed look into how government functions at the highest levels.

Two of the chapters deal with one of the persons whom everyone, reasonable Republicans and Democrats alike, agree was one of the best chiefs of staff in history, James Baker III.  He served both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, with a distinctive ability to marshal the forces of politics and facts in equal measure, which earned him his own book, as well as a stint as Secretary of the Treasury.

So, we come to the chief of staff for President Biden, Ron Klain.

Here’s the way Washington Post reporters Sean Sullivan and Tyler Pager started their story on Klain, the first major one on Klain I have seen after a year in the chief of staff job:

“As Joe Biden closed in on the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, top advisers approached him with a careful process for choosing and vetting a potential White House chief of staff.  Biden cut them short, pointing to one man whose experience in government outstripped anyone else:  ‘I want Ron.’

“But throughout his first year on the job, Ron Klain and his sterling credentials have repeatedly bumped against the unusual challenges of governing in today’s Washington.”

Klain faces the same challenges other chiefs of staff have faced over the years.  That includes attempting to manage or corral the ever-increasing size of the federal government.  It also includes playing gatekeeper for a president, which means setting out to decide which issues make it to the president’s desk and which do not.

And, now, it includes the pandemic.

According to Sullivan and Pager:

• Klain drew the ire of two key Democrats in Congress, antagonizing Senator Joe Manchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi amid disputes over legislative strategy and policy.  However, Klain maintains that he has good relationships with both and, despite differences, knows how to work with them.
• On the single biggest challenge facing the White House — battling the pandemic — Klain at times was reported to have irked the administration’s top official in charge of the coronavirus response, pushing that official, Jeff Zients, and his team to move faster in ways they found counterproductive.  Klain and Zients have denied any tension.
• Among the strongest criticisms of Klain are some from certain Democrats who say he has forged an alliance with the party’s left that has undercut Biden’s effectiveness and hurt the president’s political image.
• Many complaints center on negotiations with Capitol Hill over Biden’s agenda this past fall, with many Democrats charging that Klain acceded too often to the demands of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

At the same time, Klain, is praised by many in the White House and on Capitol Hill for his responsiveness and organizational abilities, and most important, is said by close associates of President Biden to retain the president’s confidence.

One senator, Richard Blumenthal, put it this way:

“I think that, by and large, he’s making the trains run on time — even though some of the boxcars may seem to be empty some of the time.”

One of the Biden’s Administration successes was passage of a landmark infrastructure package – and even some of his detractors believe Klain gets at least some credit for the positive result, which was underlined yesterday as Biden traveled to Pittsburgh to tout the bill just hours after a major bridge collapsed.

Finally, Sullivan and Pager summarize their story on Klain this way:

“Few chiefs of staff have entered the job facing such daunting challenges, and if nothing else, Klain is credited by many with quickly restoring order to a government that had been engulfed in chaos and recrimination.  Given the wreckage left by the Trump presidency, his supporters say, simply reestablishing traditional practices was itself an accomplishment.”

I agree.

In Oregon, I have worked with a few chiefs of staff for an Oregon governor.

One of the best, if not the best, was Gerry Thompson, who served as chief of staff for the last Republican governor in Oregon, Vic Atiyeh.  I worked for Thompson and she did more than “make the trains run on time.”

She played a major role in most public policy issues, yielding to the governor, of course, but asserting her own perspective.  One of the best examples was when, with the governor, she led Oregon’s fight against the Rajneesh cult, which threatened to try to take over Eastern Oregon, committing several major crimes along the way.

All of us in the Governor’s Office played a role in that successful defense against the Rajneesh offensive, but Gerry led the way.  My role?  Well, I often conferred with Gerry about a source we had within the Rejneesh camp who alerted us to crimes under way.  I also coordinated the State of Oregon’s response to the Rajneesh action to dump homeless persons in Oregon, register them to vote, and, thus, try to control who won elective office, at least in Portland…all with Gerry’s wise counsel.

As a lobbyist, I also related to two chiefs of staff of staff to Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  One was Bill Wyatt, the son of an Oregon Congressman.  The other was Tim Imeson, who cut his teeth working for Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield in Washington, D.C.

Both exemplified an important credential for a chief of staff – approachability.  But both also displayed another credential – listening, but not committing a governor to a specific action, turf better left to the governor. 

Overall, this also was an important credential:  Striking the delicate balance between politics and policy.

Back to the federal scene.  It will be interesting to see how long Klain lasts in the chief of staff job.  It is an insane job, one reason for which is that there are not hours of work.  You always are on call.

Stamina is, thus, a major issue.  Both for Klain and for his boss, Biden.

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 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.

The answer to the question in this blog headline is two-fold:

• Either split control requires actions in the middle between both Republicans and Democrats…

• Or, split control means nothing other than disagreement – sometimes heated.

I write this for a couple reasons.

First, Congress, which is essentially split between Republicans and Democrats – specifically 50-50 in the U.S. Senate – produces a lot of disagreement (with a few exceptions) as both sides compete to advance THEIR cause. 

Second, as I reflect on the Oregon Legislature back in my days as a state lobbyist, I remember when both the House and Senate were divided evenly and the result was compromise.  Good compromise.

In 2011, the Legislature was split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, much different than today where Democrats rule the roost.

The even split meant that, if anyone wanted to produce a result, they had to work the middle.  Find compromise.  Find the middle.

As a lobbyist, I loved that because all my clients were interested in contributing to modest solutions, not extremes from either side.  Note that I said “all” because a hallmark of the lobbyists in a firm I helped to found was a commitment to make government work better.  To protect clients, sure.  But, also to find workable solutions to public policy problems.

In 2011, the even split in the Oregon House was addressed with the selection of two co-speakers, Democrat Arnie Roblan and Republican Bruce Hanna.  I lobbied both and they welcomed discussions about how to proceed before decisions were made.

The two were selected by Governing Magazine among its eight “Public Officials of the Year,” and praised for “setting in motion a tenure that has been marked by rare bi-partisan cooperation and two of the most productive legislative sessions in Oregon’s history.”

In the Oregon Senate, the split resulted in the installation of Senator Peter Courtney as Senate President, an office he held for years.  As the longest serving senator in Oregon’s history, he recently announced that he won’t run for re-election, which means that, for the first time in years, there will be a new Senate President in the 2023 regular legislative session.

So, there you have it.  Two approaches.

In Congress, split control usually produces divisiveness, selfishness, and rancor.

In Oregon, at least in the past, split control worked to produce better public policy decisions.

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 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 tended to get lost in the shuffle of a long news conference, but President Joe Biden asked a good question the other day.

It was this:  What are Republicans for?

Karen Tumulty, deputy editorial page editor for the Washington Post, went on to write this:

“What are Republicans for?  Name me one thing they’re for.”

“When President Biden posed that question at his news conference Wednesday, he no doubt meant it rhetorically.

“But there is, in fact, an answer.  Today’s Republicans are for whatever they think can restore them to power.  When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what agenda Republicans plan to run on in their bid to regain control of Congress in this year’s mid-term elections, he replied:  “That is a very good question, and I’ll let you know when we take it back.”

Now, national Republicans no doubt would dispute that they have no agenda.  So, they should announce what it is – if it actually exists.  Then, we could use that information to help us vote next year.

During my long career in and around state government, I always said it was important for the clients I represented to be FOR something, not just AGAINST something.

For that reason, I always counseled clients to come up with ideas to propose to the Oregon Legislature because I said it still mattered to “have ideas.”

• If clients had concerns about the rate of state spending, they should be FOR citing examples of what could be cut, not just oppose spending generally.   
• If clients had concerns about the regulation of health insurance, they should be FOR providing specific examples of how burdensome regulation boosted costs for policyholders.
• If clients had concerns that there wasn’t enough money being directed to low-income health care, they should be FOR finding innovative ways to show how low-income health care funding would benefit the entire state.

[In fact, that’s exactly what Providence Health & Services did by enabling nurses and doctors to advocate for the spending – call them investments – given their first-hand, on-the-ground knowledge of the benefits.]

• If a client wanted to advocate for funds to deepen the Columbia River channel to aid maritime commerce, it should be FOR showing how the project would benefit export or import businesses in every county in Oregon, as well as the region.

[In fact, that’s exactly what the main channel deepening advocate, the Port of Portland, did to illustrate benefits for businesses in every corner of the region.]

Back to Tumulty for comments on huge national “BE FOR SOMETHING” issues:

• In the coming months, national Republicans will have to come up with something that resembles an agenda, if only for appearance’s sake.  Questions abound about the seriousness of that effort and whether the Republican policy platforms will amount to much more than a messaging effort.
• The GOP once prided itself, justifiably, on an intellectual seriousness that had made it the “party of ideas.”  That label was bestowed on it in 1980 by a Democrat, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Five years later, fresh off being re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history, President Ronald Reagan declared:  “The tide of history is moving irresistibly in our direction.  Why?  Because the other side is virtually bankrupt of ideas.  It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate.  It has spent its intellectual capital.”
• Now, pretty much the same could be said for the Republicans themselves.  There was a time when it was easy to define conservatism as a set of principles.  Republicans had their share of raging internal debates, but they always brought it back to a few big concepts — among them, limiting the size and reach of government, reducing taxes, strengthening national defense, and holding firm to traditional moral values.  
• That Republicans had become completely dismissive of policy was obvious at least by 2020, when the party didn’t even bother to write a platform for its convention. The one-page document the GOP produced asserted merely that the Republican National Committee enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today.”
•  Shorter version:  We’re for whatever shifting sands Trump happens to be standing upon at the moment.

Now, Republicans seem to be retaining the same bankruptcy.  They have no ideas.  They just want, as Tumulty avers, to stand on the shifting sands of Trump positions.

As Americans, we should not let them get away with failing to announce  reasons why we should trust them with our national future.  The same expectation should exist for Democrats.

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 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.

In case you didn’t notice, President Joe Biden held a stand-alone news conference this week on the date of the end of his first year in office.  It lasted, incredibly, two hours.

Various commentators and pundits were quick to rate his performance, both in his first year, as well as in the press conference.

Not surprisingly, he got both credit and debit.

But there is one fact that rises above all others.

We should be grateful every day that Biden is in office rather than former president Donald Trump and the band of incompetents who used to run the government.

Washington Post editorial writers put it this way:

“One can only imagine how much worse off the country would be if Trump were still dispensing bizarre medical advice from the White House, running a Russia-friendly foreign policy as the Kremlin prepares to invade Ukraine, or continuing to deny climate change.

“Biden also has restored integrity to the Oval Office, neither lying nor abusing his authority the way Trump did.  And the president can claim some important accomplishments.  Most Americans are vaccinated.  His covid-19 aid bill alleviated child poverty during the worst of the pandemic. The country is only beginning to see the benefits of the $1 trillion bi-partisan infrastructure bill that will fund massive investments in green energy, highways, bridges and rail, which passed under his leadership.”

[As an aside here, I add that some Republicans who voted against the infrastructure bill are now lauding its benefits where they live.]

Further, the Post made a very salient point what it said that “a president controls only so much.  He or she can do little about inflation and even less about the viral genetic mutations that lead to new coronavirus variants.”

Too often in my experience, we expect presidents and governors to fix things, as if they had ultimate power to do so. They don’t.

As a state lobbyist, I often concluded this when I saw governors get credit for economic growth and debit for economic failure.  Mostly, they deserved neither…at least not full credit nor full debit.

What’s true now, according to several media analysts, is that Biden needs to tack toward the practical.  That could mean finding a way to endorse a smaller “Build Back Better” bill.   It could mean, despite a U.S. Supreme Court setback, continuing to advocate for virus vaccination mandates (though his vaccine initiative suffered another setback yesterday when a judge rules that a mandate for federal workers should not be allowed).

Washington Post commentator E. J. Dionne put Biden’s challenge this way:

“Here is where middle-of-the-road critiques of Biden are right: 

• “He needs to focus incessantly on the virus and inflation — twin challenges that are top of mind for most Americans.
• “He needs to settle on a strategy that reaches toward as much normality as is consistent with the virus threat, and he needs to put an end to confusing messaging from various parts of the government.
• “On inflation, he needs highly visible efforts to unsnarl the supply chain.
• “He needs to resolve the core contradiction of his presidency — between his longing to be the great unifier and his desire to do big things Republicans were bound to oppose.”

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson added this point:

“It must be deeply frustrating for President Biden to take stock of his underappreciated successes. His economic performance is being trashed after the creation of 6 million jobs. His economic stewardship is being questioned in a country with 3.9 per cent unemployment. His pandemic response is being broadly criticized even though more than 75 per cent of American adults have received at least one dose of the vaccine (compared with fewer than 20 per cent 10 months ago).”

“These claims< Gerson says, “are Biden administration talking points. They have the added virtue of being true.”  Which, I add, is a huge contrast with lies and exaggerations under Donald Trump.

Will Biden be able to strike this middle-of-road re-set?  No one knows.  But, what hangs in the balance as we approach the mid-term elections is, in fact, the future of his presidency.