PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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.

Okay, I like golf more than professional football.  That’s one reason why I write about golf on this day, the day of the Super Bowl. 

I may watch part of the game, but won’t be glued to the TV.

So on with golf.

The headline in this blog first appeared in a story in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago, so I cannot take credit for it.

But, I do agree with it.

Trump and golf shouldn’t mix.  At least not officially.

For one reason, when he has played the game, he does not abide by any rules.  No surprise there because rules don’t matter to him in any context, including politics.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal wrote about the subject:

“On the day after the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a reckless mob of President Trumpsupporters — a throng spurred on by the president himself — it might make sense that Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player could have woken up, checked out the headlines, and said to themselves, ‘You know, I ought to decline that Presidential Medal of Freedom after all.’  Accepting an honor fromthis president at this time isn’t showing respect to the office.  It’s willingly associating with a delusional leader who has done his best to dismantle our democracy.

“But the problem doesn’t lie just with Sorenstam and Player, two of golf’s all-time greats, who followed through with long-held plans to receive their honors from Trump in a private ceremon.  The problem is with golf as a whole, because the sport has entangled itself with this embattled presidentand apparently doesn’t see a way to make a clean break.”

The PGA of America may have started an official break-up when it decided not to hold its signature PGA Championship at Trump’s facility in Bedminster, New Jersey, in 2022.  Trump blanched at the move, but it was about time it occurred and it is likely that other Trump venues will be excluded from playing rotations.

The Journal continued:

“In choosing to go to the White House, Player and Sorenstam — natives of South Africa and Sweden, respectively — missed their chance to say, ‘Enough is enough.’

“Of all the traits golf purports to teach, honor is foremost among them.  Golfers honor the rules, whether anyone is watching them or not.  They honor their competitors by honestly recording their scores.  In a casual amateur match, there is no referee.  There is only trust that two players are reporting what happened truthfully.”

Trump has torched those traits from the highest position in the nation, not just as a weekend hacker.  This is worth noting because his tentacles are deep in the sport and it’s past time to declaw those tentacles.

Let him play his own game.  Just don’t endorse his overt and abhorrent conduct by contributing to his bottom line.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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 will be an unusual story because, if you read newspapers or watch television coverage of the vaccination roll-out, your sense is that there is nothing but problems.

To be sure, there are problems and no doubt there will be more with such a huge undertaking – vaccinating the entire population.

But my recent positive experience is worth noting.

Yesterday, my wife and I headed from our winter home in La Quinta, California, west to the town of Beaumont along I-10.  There, we were scheduled to get the first Pfizer vaccine at 9:15 a.m., an appointment I was lucky enough to book about a week ago with the help of a senior citizen center. 

Yes, I am senior citizen.

We arrived in Beaumont about an hour early and parked in a line of about 30 cars.  Before long, we started moving and, in about 10 minutes, we were parked in a school lot and heading into a building where we would receive the shots.

Inside the building, the line was not long, even with marked social distancing separations. 

All we had to do was present our identification and a copy of our e-mailed appointment confirmation.

Soon, the friendly staff summoned us to a table and, in only a matter of seconds, my wife and I received the shots.  I almost didn’t feel it, expecting something different, given what I had heard through grapevines about the size of the needle and keeping the needle in the arm long enough to deposit all of the vaccine.

But, easy. 

Then, we were told to sit for about 15 minutes to assure that we did not have any reactions.

We did not.

Overall, in about an hour, we were out of the vaccine site and headed home, with a commitment for a second dose on or about February 26.

As a former journalist, I have had questions about how many outlets cover the vaccine process.  It appears they find something wrong and then focus on that to the exclusion of cases where processes work well.

Two of the positive cases have been in Beaumont and, by many accounts, back in our hometown, Salem, Oregon.  There, Salem Health has received plaudits for running, with help from the Oregon National Guard, a site at the State Fairgrounds that has used the Pfizer vaccine to good success.

Media coverage strikes me a little like coverage of a snowstorm in Oregon.  When you see what amounts to a snapshot, you are left with impression that cars and trucks are stuck all over the place and it is snowing everywhere.  No.  It is not.  It is a snapshot.

Much the same could be said vaccine distribution.  I say reporters should take a series of snapshots, including the good and the bad, and then produce fairer accounts.

Meanwhile, regardless of media coverage, I just hope vaccine distribution processes continue unabated so we can reach herd immunity, which, I know, will take many more months.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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 has been said that there are two types of elected officials – trustees and delegates.

Trustees try to use their minds and their experience to make good decisions once they win elective office.

Delegates believe they have been elected by certain folks and, thus, should do the bidding of those folks.

Of course, these definitions are generalizations.  Elected officials often act in various ways, not just one.

But one of best trustees I have known was the late Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon, now more than 35 years ago.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I had the privilege of working for Victor, including as his press secretary, so I am a biased source.

He performed very well as a trustee, not concerned about his next election prospects, bur rather about what was best for “his “ state, Oregon.

I was reminded of this the other day when one of my friends, Jim Moore, an experienced Pacific University political scholar, wrote a blog about “delegates and trustees.”

Moore’s words are worth considering.

]”In the 18th century,” he wrote, “Edmund Burke had an idea that helps us to make sense out of the roles of those in elective office.  He posited that there were two models of behavior.

“First, the elected officer could be a delegate.  A delegate’s job was to carry out the wishes of the people as well as possible.  Back in the late 1700s, this was hard to figure out at times, but, in the 21st Century, a delegate would be reliant on polling of constituents, communications from voters, and, inevitably, the waves of ideas that spill out of social media.  A delegate stayed in office as long as the will of the people was carried out.

“Second, an elected officer could be a trustee.  A trustee’s job was to use judgment to deal with political questions.  The role of the electorate was to choose the officeholder with the skills and experience to weigh issues and make political decisions that were the best for the entire polity, regardless of how that polity thought at any particular time.”

In his article, Moore went on to enunciate a proposition, with which I strongly agree.  He lauded Atiyeh as a man of principle, believing himself to be a “trustee” of the public good, not just a “delegate.”

A key principle for Atiyeh was that he didn’t work to get credit for himself for doing good things in government.  He just wanted to be involved in the good things and let credit go where it goes, with no designs on claiming it.

What Moore wrote in conclusion:  “I don’t know what the future will bring, but my strong sense is that we need people like former Governor Vic Atiyeh to stand up, on either side, and take more trustee-like positions.  Vic (whose biography is sitting on the floor of my office awaiting even more cuts until it is shorter than 450 pages) made a decision before he even ran for his first office in 1958 — he would make governing decisions without considering what it would do for his chances at re-election.

“He did not follow this 100 per cent of the time, but he did it enough that he became comfortable being an outsider in the Oregon Legislature on many, many issues.”

Just think of what it would be like if we had more “trustees” like Atiyeh in government these days.  The fact is that we, as citizens, would see better decisions.  We might not always agree with the decisions, but they’d be better, not just linked to the latest poll.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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.

Why would I feel compelled to write about impeachment from my post out West far from the action?

Well, I am a bit of a political junkie, so the subject interests me.  Plus, a lot is at stake for Americans and our system of government as we watch impeachment processes play out in Washington, D.C.

And, as with many political issues these days, I can understand both sides – those in favor of holding former president Donald Trump to account for provoking insurrection, and those not in favor of doing so because, after all, he is no longer in office as president and it’s time to focus on the new president’s priorities, the leading one of which is to control the virus.

It appears that there are not votes in the Senate to convict Trump, so it strikes me that there could be a compromise:  Censure him for his reprehensible conduct so as not to allow such conduct to escape punishment.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are moving ahead with plans to argue impeachment before the Senate.

They have sought out new cellphone footage of the January 6 Capitol insurrection, as well as updated details about injured police officers.

They want to present the Senate with fresh evidence that reveals what Trump knew in advance of the rampage at the Capitol, as well as how his words and actions influenced those who participated to lay siege to the Capitol.  

Overall, the rioting left five dead, including a Capital police officer.   In addition, two officers, one with the D.C. Police Department, died by suicide.

As reported by the Washington Post, the effort to present new video evidence and witness testimony appears designed to make Republican senators as uncomfortable as possible as they prepare to vote to acquit Trump, as most have indicated they will do.

The prospect of injured police officers describing the brutality of pro-Trump rioters to Republicans who regularly present themselves as advocates of law enforcement could make for an extraordinary, nationally televised scene.

Republican votes to acquit appear to be based on the contention that it is unconstitutional to try a former president on impeachment charges.  That spares them from having to evaluate Trump’s conduct.  

The “he’s out of office” theory is contested by many constitutional scholars, but has gained a foothold in the GOP ranks.

But, as I wrote earlier, if there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.

One person who wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal put it this way:

“If there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.  Nothing is more important in a democracy than the peaceful transfer of power.”

So, when all is said and done, it appears the most extreme punishment for Trump – conviction after impeachment – won’t occur.  I say head for censure instead and, then, get about important business in this country sans Trump.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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.

Why would I feel compelled to write about impeachment from my post out West far from the action?

Well, I am a bit of a political junkie, so the subject interests me.  Plus, a lot is at stake for Americans and our system of government as we watch impeachment processes play out in Washington, D.C.

And, as with many political issues these days, I can understand both sides – those in favor of holding former president Donald Trump to account for provoking insurrection, and those not in favor of doing so because, after all, he is no longer in office as president and it’s time to focus on the new president’s priorities, the leading one of which is to control the virus.

It appears that there are not votes in the Senate to convict Trump, so it strikes me that there could be a compromise:  Censure him for his reprehensible conduct so as not to allow such conduct to escape punishment.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are moving ahead with plans to argue impeachment before the Senate.

They have sought out new cellphone footage of the January 6 Capitol insurrection, as well as updated details about injured police officers.

They want to present the Senate with fresh evidence that reveals what Trump knew in advance of the rampage at the Capitol, as well as how his words and actions influenced those who participated to lay siege to the Capitol.  

Overall, the rioting left five dead, including a Capital police officer.   In addition, two officers, one with the D.C. Police Department, died by suicide.

As reported by the Washington Post, the effort to present new video evidence and witness testimony appears designed to make Republican senators as uncomfortable as possible as they prepare to vote to acquit Trump, as most have indicated they will do.

The prospect of injured police officers describing the brutality of pro-Trump rioters to Republicans who regularly present themselves as advocates of law enforcement could make for an extraordinary, nationally televised scene.

Republican votes to acquit appear to be based on the contention that it is unconstitutional to try a former president on impeachment charges.  That spares them from having to evaluate Trump’s conduct.  

The “he’s out of office” theory is contested by many constitutional scholars, but has gained a foothold in the GOP ranks.

But, as I wrote earlier, if there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.

One person who wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal put it this way:

“If there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.  Nothing is more important in a democracy than the peaceful transfer of power.”

So, when all is said and done, it appears the most extreme punishment for Trump – conviction after impeachment – won’t occur.  I say head for censure instead and, then, get about important business in this country sans Trump.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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.

President Joe Biden is set to take an action today that illustrates his commitment to undo one of the most egregious actions by Trump and his acolytes.

It was, intentionally, to separate children from their immigrant parents at U.S. borders.  Call it what is was – kidnapping.

Undoing the damage cannot come soon enough.

Under this headline, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning on Biden’s planned action:

BIDEN TO SET UP TASK FORCE TO REUNITE FAMILIES SEPARATED AT THE BORDER

Here is more of the Journal’s story:

“President Biden plans to form a task force to reunite immigrant families separated at the southern border under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, one of several executive orders on immigration Biden is expected to sign Tuesday.

“The orders will set in motion a process that the new administration hopes will reverse a number of border policies and restrictions on legal immigration.

“But the orders themselves will make no immediate changes to immigration policy.  Instead, the actions signal a desire to balance competing pressures: immigration advocates hoping for swift action to undo Trump’s policies and the danger that undoing too many restrictions at once could trigger a surge of migrants attempting to enter the U.S.

“The reunification task force, which Biden pledged to create during his campaign, will charge the government with identifying all of the children who remain separated from their parents and locating those parents across Latin America, where they were likely deported.

“The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the separated children in a continuing class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government, and other nonprofit organizations have been placing advertisements and making trips across the region to help locate deported parents. The ACLU has said in court filings it has identified more than 600 children who remain separated from their parents.”

Again, this cannot happen quickly enough.

Just imagine the isolation for children separated from their parents for months.

Just imagine the agony for parents separated from their children for months.

How many children and parents are caught in this intolerable predicament?  Estimates range between 500 and 1,000.

But, whatever the overall numbers, this paragraph from a Washington Post story this morning puts the issue in graphic and emotional detail:

“It’s a daily horror for us who are living without our children. It’s an endless sadness,” said Maria, a Guatemalan mother of a 10-year-old girl who was separated on the Arizona-Mexico border in July 2017. “All we want is the opportunity to see our kids, to be with them again.”

Meanwhile, what we are witnessing now in Washington, D.C. is a process related to whether Trump will be convicted in the Senate’s second impeachment trial.  Incredibly, he chances appear good Republicans will not vote to convict.

But, for me, the “child separation” policy would be enough, on its own, to warrant Trump’s conviction, though the policy is not part of the impeachment process.  Trump and his enablers should go to jail as their offenses should stand on their own as kidnapping.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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 dedicated reader of my blog – yes there is one – suggested the other day that I should research two issues:  (1) how Oregon’s virus infection rate compares with other states, and (2) how Oregon’s death rate compares with other states.

Well, I thought — good questions.

So I did what most of us do these days when we have unanswered questions – we go to the Internet.

I did and here’s what I found.

• In terms of virus infection rates, Oregon ranks near the bottom among states and Washington, D.C. – in fact, fourth from the bottom at 3,304 cases per 100,000 persons on a total population of 4.2 million.
• In terms of virus death rates, Oregon again ranks near the bottom among states and D.C. – in fact, fifth from the bottom at 46 deaths per 100,000 persons, again on a population of 4.2 million.

What do these statistics tell us?

Well, first, we all know these days that you can use statistics to make any point you want to make.   But, on its face, these statistics point to the fact is that Oregon is doing an excellent job of dealing with the virus when you compare Oregon statistics to other states and D.C.

Of course, there is always room for improvement in such an endeavor because, in the end, the vaccine is the key to the future of living without the virus, as well as allowing the economy to recover.

I have said before that I am glad I don’t have the job Oregon Governor Kate Brown and her staff face every day:  Making life and death decisions about the virus.

There are no right answers.  Good ones?  Yes.  Rational ones?  Yes. 

But, no matter what the governor and her staff do they will face criticism.

I, for one, will give the governor and her staff room to operate and make the best decisions for all of Oregon as the statistics above indicate they have done so far.  Their record has earned them credibility.

And, I also will trust that, under pressure, she and her staff will turn for help to private sector operations like Salem Health, which has won plaudits for its operation of the mass vaccine site at the State Fairgrounds in Salem and Western Oregon University in Monmouth.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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.

Several months ago, I had a simplistic notion as all of us began confronting the Covid-19 virus.

The notion was clear and simple, if not obvious:  The key to getting past the virus would be vaccines.

Some of my friends may say they believe many of my notions are simplistic.  And I often could be accused of citing the obvious. 

But, this time, it turned out that the simplistic notion was not so simple after all:  Getting vaccines to Americans has been very difficult…unfortunately.

Along the way, we learned several things:

• If he gets some credit for prodding the development of vaccines, former President Donald Trump gets debit for mismanaging vaccination processes.  He said there were vaccines reserves; there weren’t.   

• So, when President Joe Biden ruled that reserves should be released, there were none.

• That meant states would have difficulty arranging vaccine distribution without clear indications about supplies.

• It could be contended that, in the absence of clear federal instructions about distribution, states should have been prepared with their own plans.  They weren’t.

• Of course, no distribution plan would work if there were not enough vaccines, either for those who deserve early doses — health care workers, teachers, and the aging population – or for the population in general.

So, here we are.  No clear or firm distribution plans in any state, including Oregon.  Information changes almost daily. 

Biden took steps last week to deal with under-supply by ordering – and paying for – millions of new vaccine vials.  Still, that won’t produce sufficient supplies quickly enough.

With my wife, Nancy, our travel through vaccine processes verifies the dead ends. 

What happened was this.

About three weeks ago, we stumbled on information that suggested vaccine givers at the State Fairgrounds in Salem, Oregon were able to use ”extra vaccines” for folks not otherwise eligible.  Extras were available, I surmise, because not as many health care workers as expected showed up to get vaccines.  So, in an attempt to avoid wasting vials of the vaccine that were out of the deep freeze, workers passed information by word of mouth and communication grapevines that some “extras” were available.

I heard this first from my daughter-in-law, a teacher, who went down to the Fairgrounds with a friend, not a teacher, and managed to get two vaccines.  I quickly passed information to my friends in Salem and, in the space of a couple weeks, nearly all of them were able to get vaccines at the Fairgrounds.

Folks in the Portland area were not as lucky.  Neither were others around the state.

And, here in La Quinta, California (where we are spending part of our winter), we have tried to get vaccines for those 65 years of age and older, but, so far, we have missed out on booking appointments.  For all we know, our on-line attempts missed by mere seconds.

Back in Oregon, Governor Kate Brown is coming under heavy criticism for deciding teachers will get vaccines before old persons.  She has defended herself by saying that, if the reverse were true – if old folks came before teachers – reaction would have been just as negative.

As Brown put it in a column by Dick Hughes, former editor of the editorial page of the Statesman-Journal (when it had one);

“No matter what you do, people aren’t happy,” Brown said. “The teachers in Minnesota are furious at the governor because they are doing seniors first. And here, the seniors are furious at me because I am doing teachers first. There are no right answers, and there are no easy decisions.”

She is right in the sense that those making vaccine distribution decisions face life-or-death decisions every day and cannot make the “right ones.”

So, my wife and I have not received the vaccine and, in that way, we are like millions of others. 

Thus, my simplistic notion – vaccines were the panacea – was not as accurate as I hoped it would be.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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.

That’s what I managed to do – dodging a bullet — when the American Express Pro Golf Tournament, here in La Quinta, California, changed the way the four-round event was to be played.

The impetus for the change?  Covid-19.

To read farther in this blog, I suspect you have to be either an avid golfer or someone interested in the subject.

So I continue. 

Without the virus, I was scheduled to serve as a walking marshal at the La Quinta Country Club Course, only a couple of blocks from our winter home down here.  Then, the change came.

Amateurs, who were going to play with pros on the first three days of the tournament, were told that the virus meant they would not be able to play.  In turn, that meant the La Quinta Country Club course would be dropped from the playing rotation, leaving the PGA West Nicklaus and Stadium courses as the tournament venues.

Volunteers at La Quinta – including me — were told they would not be needed this year, but would be enrolled again next year.

So, why the bullet image?

Well, it’s what my assignment was going to be, a tough one.

First, because there also were no spectators this year due to Covid-19, there would be no need for walking marshals, which has been my assignment for the last two years.  I knew about the change a couple months ago, so had an opportunity to choose another activity.

I chose to be a “walking scorer.”

Then, the reality closed in.

Being a walking scorer is a complicated job, one that (1) helps to run a tournament, (12) produces a wealth of at-the-time, on-the-ground statistics, and (3) provides information to those managing TV coverage.  It is all part of what is called “The Shot-Link” system, developed by a company that has a contract with the PGA Tour.

So, the point is that, as a walking scorer, you cannot screw up.

Based on an on-line training regime I took (and passed), here is a summary of tasks for a walking scorer:

• You are given a tablet to carry around with you as you walk 18 holes very close to the players on the fairways and near the greens.

• When a player is getting ready to hit a shot, you have to click the location – teeing ground, landing area, or green.

• Then, as the player approaches the ball, you hit another click.

• Then, when he hits the ball, you click that he has done so.

• Then, on or off a green, when a player holes a shot, you have to click that.

• If the player has only a very short putt and makes that put, you have to click “tap-in.”

• Then, you have to click again to verify you have the right score for the hole.

• And, before all shots are holed, you have to strike a click if a player is in a penalty area, plus another click of that player needs a rules official’s help.

Get the picture?  Complicated!

To illustrate the complexity, one of the comments in the on-line training regime was that, as a walking scorer, you are NOT supposed to “watch golf,” in the normal sense of the phrase.  You are on-site to make all the clicks in a very timely fashion no matter how good or how bad the golf is.

As I faced this prospect, I had mixed emotions, though I think I would have decided to show up to verify that I could complete the task.  Then, in succeeding years, I would be more comfortable functioning as a walking scorer, having survived the trial run.

So, bring on the American Express tournament next year.  Between then and now, I’ll steal myself for another test drive.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as 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 was ready with another blog post this morning, but then I read a story in the Washington Post under this headline:

“Biden struggles to define his ‘unity’ promise for a divided nation”

By Ashley Parker, Matt Viser and Annie Linskey, the story did what the Post often does in the spirit of solid journalism BY going beneath the surface to add to reader’s knowledge and perspective.

Rather than trying to summarize the writing, I am again choosing, as I sometimes do, to reprint the entire story here.  I do so because it helps to clarify the definition of “unity” as advocated by President Joe Biden in the days after the Trump Administration, which fomented anti-unity for four years.

The piece is long, but worth reading.

**********

Barack Obama offered “hope and change.” Donald Trump vowed to “Make America Great Again.” George W. Bush promised “compassionate conservatism.”

And for President Biden, the slogan comes down to one word: “unity.”

Biden campaigned on — and came to office promising — the ineffable concept of unity, a feel-good catchall that proffered bipartisan bonhomie, but with few tangible specifics.

Now, Biden and his team are working to implement that amorphous goal, which has already been weaponized by Republicans who disagree with Biden’s policy aims and challenged by some fellow Democrats.

Facing a deadly coronavirus pandemic and a troubled economy, as well as the slimmest of congressional majorities, Biden and his advisers are attempting to implement a blueprint of unity for a country that can only seem to agree on how much it disagrees.

Even coming up with a common definition for what unity should mean has proved impossible to unify around.

“I do think it means a lot of different things,” said John Anzalone, a top Biden adviser and campaign pollster. “When we would ask people in polls what was Joe Biden’s message, they understood it was unity. They would say ‘bringing people together’ or ‘unity.’ ”

“It may have meant different things to them,” Anzalone added. “Maybe it was bringing the different parties together. Or healing the country by using a different tone and demeanor.”

Republicans — citing various Democratic initiatives that Biden is putting forth — have already sounded anti-unity alarms, claiming that the fact Biden is governing as a Democrat means he is not committed to his campaign mantra. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) defined “unity” differently still, arguing Sunday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that the phrase perhaps should mean Democrats being “unified against insurrection,” a reference to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of angry Trump supporters.

The upcoming Senate impeachment trial of Trump over his alleged role in inciting that riot underscores the riven nature of the nation’s politics, with all but five Republican senators voting Tuesday to challenge the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.

Biden and his aides have offered broad, and sometimes conflicting, definitions of what unity entails.

The president told reporters Monday that it means trying to “eliminate the vitriol,” “trying to reflect what the majority of the American people — Democrat, Republican, independent — think,” and trying to “stay away from the ad hominem attacks on one another.”

But Biden also said consensus should not be confused with bipartisanship, and left open the possibility muscling through his coronavirus relief package over the objections of congressional Republicans.

 “Unity also is trying to get, at a minimum, if you pass a piece of legislation that breaks down on party lines, but it gets passed, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t unity,” Biden said. “It just means it wasn’t bipartisan.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday that unity signifies “approaching our work on legislative issues through a bipartisan lens,” but also “projecting that he is going to govern for all people and address all of the issues that the American people are facing.”

“Unity is about the country feeling that they’re in it together,” Psaki said, “and I think we’ll know that when we see it.”

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) echoed the same phrase, which is often associated with the definition of obscenity famously offered by then-Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

 “I’ll know it when I see it,” Hickenlooper said when asked how to recognize unity. “Isn’t that what they say about pornography?”

Early polling indicates that most Americans agree with Biden’s call for bipartisanship, with 71 percent saying they would rather see congressional Republicans work with Biden than focus on keeping him in check, according to a new Monmouth University poll conducted in the days after the inauguration. About 6 in 10 Americans have some confidence that Biden will be able to get Washington to be more cooperative, and nearly 8 in 10 said it was very or extremely important that the federal government address the lack of unity in the country.

But Republicans argue that by pursing policy goals with which they disagree, the new president is spurning his own appeals for unity. The stance is arguably disingenuous, but also potentially politically effective, allowing Republicans to undercut Biden’s entire organizing principle.

In a tweet, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) linked to a story on Biden’s move to end Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers serving in the military, writing: “Another ‘unifying’ move by the new Administration?”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) criticized Biden’s aspirations, as well. “I just wish that his actions matched the words of his inaugural in terms of being unifying and healing,” Johnson said this week. “I’m not seeing his initial actions being that, which is disappointing.”

And Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio and Fox News host, used his show to lambaste what he said were Biden’s false claims of unity. “Joe Biden made much of the word unity,” he said last weekend. “Nothing that Joe Biden has done since his inauguration speech demonstrates any form of unity.”

Writing online, Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to Obama, moved to temper the realm of the possible: “The ‘unity’ conversation is going to be constantly distorted with unfair expectations, bad faith arguments, and general stupidity.”

Natural partisan disagreements, he wrote, should not be misconstrued as disunity, and one metric for success should be consensus from a majority of the country, not a majority from the opposing party.

“Joe Biden won the election. Republicans lost. Joe Biden doing the things Americans elected him to do is not divisive. The Republicans may not like it, but that’s their problem,” Pfeiffer wrote. “A majority of Americans voted to rejoin the Paris Accords, repeal the Muslim ban, implement more comprehensive pandemic measures and so on. Pushing forward on agenda items supported by the majority of Americans is not divisive just because [Republican Sens.] Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson find it irksome.”

At the same time, even some of Biden’s Democratic allies have struggled to articulate the exact meaning of the word in a Biden administration, often defining it by what it is not.

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said unity can be observed and felt, but not necessarily measured. “Unity to me simply means finding common ground — it doesn’t mean unanimity,” he said. “I don’t know why people think you can’t be unified unless you’re unanimous. That’s all Biden is talking about: trying to find common ground.”

Clyburn liked it to his 58-year marriage to his wife, who died in 2019.

“There was never any disunity to our marriage,” he said. “But there was a whole lot of difference of opinion. We were seldom unanimous in what we did and what we thought, but there was always unity.”

Still, Clyburn added, though he believes Biden’s main goal is seeking common ground, the concept can also be warped — and even dangerous.

“I don’t want to be unfair about this, but one of the reasons I don’t like this unity argument is because I’ve been Black all my 80 years and in the South,” he said. “The South was unified against me. There was Southern unity for segregation. So you have to be relative about this. You can be unified and be inhuman. Unity is to me something we have to be careful about.”

Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who often talks with Biden and spoke to him as he prepared the foundation of his campaign, said that some of the symbolic actions in the early days of Biden’s presidency — a day of service shortly before his inauguration, a memorial for coronavirus victims and a bipartisan invitation to lawmakers to join him for a church service — were designed with unity in mind.

 “It doesn’t mean uniformity, it doesn’t mean conformity or unanimity, it doesn’t mean we’re all going to agree on everything,” Coons said. “Bringing unity to the country starts with telling us the truth, having a real and concrete plan. It’s not just brave words. It’s actually doing the job of being president.”

Hickenlooper, a former governor of Colorado, laughed out loud when confronted with the question of how unity can be measured. “I’m not sure how you measure when you’re there,” he said. “But I do think that what President Biden is putting out is a road map.”

The concept has been a guiding force for Biden since the earliest days of his campaign, when he was meeting with advisers at a home he was renting in McLean to sketch out his fledgling bid.

“We choose unity over division,” Biden said, again and again, in the climax of almost every stump speech.

On the campaign trail, he frequently used unity and civility interchangeably, often while mentioning the lesson imparted to him by the late former Democratic senator Mike Mansfield: “It’s always appropriate to question another man’s judgment, but never appropriate to question his motives.”

Biden’s rhetoric was generally cast as naive in a Democratic primary in which candidates often engaged in partisan warfare, as Biden trumpeted his ability to work with Republicans.

“I kept talking about unity, and everybody said, ‘No, you can’t have unity any longer. It’s changed so fundamentally, Joe. It can’t be put back together again,’ ” he said during a 2019 fundraiser. “Well, if that’s the case, we’re all dead. We’re in real trouble, because our constitutional system requires consensus.”

Late in the campaign, Biden delivered a major speech in Gettysburg, Pa. — a place chosen to highlight the perils of division, and the merits of unity. “The closing argument is that we need to unify the country,” Mike Donilon, Biden’s chief strategist, said at the time. “He won’t represent just Democrats or Republicans; he’ll represent everyone.”

In his inauguration speech, Biden mentioned “unity” more than a half-dozen times, at one point citing other challenges that tested the nation — the Civil War, the Great Depression, two world wars and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward,” he said, referring not to an end of partisanship but an idealistic joining of the nation. “And, we can do so now. History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity.”

One example of Biden’s approach occurred at the end of a brief question-and-answer session with reporters Monday. As Biden’s aides began to wrap up, ushering the media out of the room, the president paused and turned to Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy, who as a reporter covering the campaign often rankled Biden and his team with his pointed questions.

“I know he always asks me tough questions, and he always has an edge to them,” Biden said. “But I like him anyway.”

“So,” the president continued, addressing the reporter from a network whose prime-time hosts frequently propagate false conspiracy theories against him, “go ahead and answer — ask the question.”