THOUGHTS ON WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A PRESS SECRETARY

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, 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.

The headline for this blog may seem a bit arcane, but I write about this subject — being a press secretary for a top government official — having been one in my past.

I served as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor, the late Victor Atiyeh.

It was a position I took very seriously, for I had to strike the right balance between advocating for my boss, the governor, and shooting straight with the media.

Fortunately for me, Governor Atiyeh expected me to do my job with accuracy, ethics and credibility.

I writer all of this to submit that the role of press secretary in the White House has changed dramatically — and not for the better.

The current one for President Donald Trump, Stephanie Grisham, fancies herself only as an advocate for Trump, not a conduit for the press.

For one thing, she has not held one briefing for the press in the White House as had become a tradition for her predecessors. Not one. Zero.

She shows no signs of relenting on this. She said she thinks “reporters use the briefings to grandstand,” so she studiously avoids the role.

Grisham, of course, took her place in a less-than-distinguished line of Trump-era press secretaries. Sean Spicer peddled lies about the Trump inauguration crowd on his first day. Sarah Sanders exuded contempt at almost all points along the way. And Anthony Scaramucci flamed out in days.

Washington Post media analyst Margaret Sullivan wrote a piece over the weekend asking whether Grisham was the worst-ever White House press secretary. Sullivan answered “no” because, she said, Grisham functions as an acolyte of Trump, not a press secretary.

In her reporting, Sullivan relied, in part, on perceptions from Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

“Your main job,” Lockhart contends, “is to advocate for the press within the government. You have to make sure that the information going out to the American public and to the world is accurate and complete.

“And the reason for daily briefings? They tend to force decisions to get made in a sensible way — they reduce impetuousness and procrastination.”

When things get particularly ugly — as, for example, during the period when Clinton was being impeached — Lockhart says the need for briefings is even greater because the public is justifiably more hungry for information.

Grisham mirrors Trump when, instead of talking with reporters, she fires off aggressive tweets, often disparaging journalists, and frequently makes appearances on the Trump propaganda network, Fox News, or the even more right wing and equally friendly OANN.

She co-wrote an offensive op-ed piece harshly criticizing two Washington Post reporters for an accurate story that Trump didn’t like.

And, as Trump sycophant, she had this to say about former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly: “He was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.” Or she eagerly agreed with Trump that his critics are “human scum.”

It would not be accurate fully to compare press secretary jobs in Oregon and Washington, D.C., but I have a few thoughts about what should characterize the job wherever it is located.

Are they big thoughts?

Perhaps not.

Are they worth considering?

Who knows? But, for my part, I think they are brilliant.

• Put your best foot forward in representing your boss, but don’t descend to lies, rumor, innuendo or name-calling.
• Strive for accuracy and context because both are critically important.

[Permit an example here. Back when I served as press secretary for Governor Atiyeh, the time came for us to decide whether and, if so how, to issue a report on the number of jobs state government had helped the private sector to create. First, note the phrase, “helped the private sector to create jobs.” That was our job; not to create the jobs ourselves. Second, we needed to strive for accuracy and context so our report, under inevitable scrutiny, would stand up under that scrutiny. Facts matter. The context in which those facts lie also matters. Think about this with regard to Grisham and Trump: Neither has any commitment to accuracy or context.]

• Understand that, in the end, you work for taxpayers who pay your salary.
• Recognize that one of your tasks is to build credibility for government, something which sorely is lacking in today’s version of government, both in Washington, D.C. and Oregon.

One more point is worth making here. One of the great traits of Governor Atiyeh, one I admired and tried to replication was this: He didn’t care who got the credit when something good happened – he only wanted to produce “something good.”

Wouldn’t that be healthy if that model existed today – both in the top-level public officials, as well as in the press secretaries who represent them?

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, 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.

The headline refers to the fact that the “Desert Classic” pro golf tournament starts next week in the California desert – and that brings back a flood of memories for me.

Why “The American Express?”

The good news is that the major American company has stepped up to the plate to sign a five-year contract to be the named sponsor of the iconic desert tournament.

Last year, there was not a named sponsor, so the tournament went by the moniker “The Desert Classic.” To be sure, there were a number of “secondary sponsors,” including the company called WorkDay, which, some thought could become the primary named sponsor.

Another piece of good news thie year is that one of America’s best and well-known golfers, Phil Mickelson, has become the “host” of the tournament this year. Last year, he was called the “Tournament Ambassador,” but his new name could mean that he will be the host for several years, following in the footsteps, it could be said, of Bob Hope who made the desert tournament famous.

Mickelson also produced a great first round last year. He shot 60 on the La Quinta Country Club course and almost won the tournament, eventually finishing in the top five.

Another reason the tournament conjures up memories for me is that I served last year as a “walking marshal,” a title that meant I walked inside the ropes each day of the four-day tournament and, with colleagues, was assigned to make sure spectators didn’t venture inside the ropes.

Frankly, I did not have much to do, so I got to watch a lot of good golf up close and personal.

I still remember the first day as a walking marshal. One of the two pros in the group to which I assigned (on the first three days of the tournament, two amateurs pay to play with the two pros) included the pro Jason Duffner who, at best, could be called a bit of journeyman, though he has won five PGA tournaments.

He was – and is – memorable because of his apparent attitude on the course. He always appears to be mad at something or someone. Perhaps he is not, but appearances count.

It was not a good experience to be to a group assigned last year that included Duffner. I hope for better as, again, I will be a walking marshal for all four tournament days next week.

Should be an interesting and worthwhile experience for me in the spirit of giving back to the game I love.

And, to be fair, last year ended with a great experience on the fourth day of the tournament – I walked with a group that included one of my favorite golfers, Zack Johnson, who always himself with skill and aplomb.

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, 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.

This is one of three departments I run because – no dispute here – I am well qualified on all counts to assume these high-level jobs.

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

For now, here are my latest pet peeves.

INSURANCE PREMIUMS VS. CLAIMS: This is a major peeve for me. To put it simply, insurance companies love with you pay premiums, but hate when you file claims.

I say this as a retired lobbyist who represented health insurers in Oregon for about 25 years – and, during those years, while I was not in charge of paying claims, I encouraged my clients to consider claims honesty and expeditiously.

After all, those who had signed up for insurance deserved coverage, as long as those claimed basic reviews.

My wife’s and my most recent experience with insurance dealt with a claim we filed pursuant to a trip insurance policy we bought before traveling overseas. For us, that trip had to be cut short due to an emergency illness.

But, as I write this, it took almost two months to get the insurance payment after we filed the claim. Not to mention all of the hard work on the part of my wife who persevered against an array of insurance adjusters.

We paid an insurance premium. We barely got a check for the claim.

Being an insurance adjuster must be one of the most thankless jobs in America.

GLITCHES IN A NEW GOLF HANDICAPPING SYSTEM: This will be of interest only to dedicated golfers, such as myself.

In what sounded like a solid, international effort, six golf systems – including the United States Golf Association in the U.S. – got together to produce one handicapping system where, previously, there had been six.

Handicapping, by the way, if you don’t know, is a system for posting your golf scores so you get what is called “a handicap.” Then, when your handicap is compared to other golfers who have a handicap, the system allows players of different abilities to compete against each other in a fair manner.

With the one-system change, however, the devil is in the details.

If only for reasons for technology, it was difficult for the systems to be merged into one.

Plus, there was an additional factor, which amounts to my pet peeve.

It was that golfers were “expected” (though, I admit, not required) to past all 18 hole-by-hole scores, then the total – and not just the total.

I don’t any of my golfing friends who will go to that silly extent.

I say just post your total score, produce an adjusted handicap and play on.

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE GAMES CONTINUE: This last pet peeve will surprise no one who knows how I think about politics.

I wish House and Senate interests would get together to design an impeachment hearing in the Senate, one that honors the U.S. Constitution, not to mention citizens like me and many others who expect better from Congress, whatever the result is from a Senate pre-disposed to support President Donald Trump.

During my career in and around government, process always has mattered.

So far, leaders on both sides appear to have very little regard for process. They are singing from prepared sheets of music, with lyrics that have been written in advance and pay no attention to what the other side says.

That’s not the best we can do in today’s politics, but it is the best we get, which means this is a pet peeve for me.

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, 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.

E. J. Dionne is not one of my favorite columnists for the Washington Post – he is usually too far left for me, as I label myself a “centrist.” But this week Dionne made a thought-provoking point in one of his columns.

President Donald Trump not only benefits from division and dissension, he tries to provoke it. It is the way he hopes to win in 2020.

Here are a few more paragraphs from Dionne’s column:

“We often hear that both sides of politics benefit equally from polarization. This is plainly untrue.

“Say what you will about President Trump, but he knows there’s only one way he can prevail. He needs to keep the nation deeply divided — by race, immigration status and religion, and by region, culture and ideology.

“Trump’s rants seem — and often are — irrational, undisciplined and self-indulgent. But they are also shrewd and ­purposeful.

“He accepts that he has permanently lost large parts of the country. But, given our electoral college, he knows he doesn’t have to win a plurality of the popular vote. He needs only tiny margins in swing states, and these require overwhelming support from whites, Christians, older Americans and people in small cities and rural areas.

“He needs them to believe that he’s their champion and that his enemies — liberals and ‘socialists,’ big-city folk and the ‘politically correct,’ the secular and the culturally adventurous — hate them. If keeping that level of hostility high requires direct and indirect appeals to racism and xenophobia, he’s good with that.”

So, polarization and division are hallmarks of Trump.

For those on the other side of Trump – I decline to call them “progressives,” as Dionne does, for that title gives them more benefit than I think they deserve – division doesn’t work.

For now, let’s call them Democrats. They win only with coalitions that cross the lines of race, place and faith. Democrat candidates need strong support and turnout from African Americans, Latinos and city dwellers. But they cannot prevail in swing states without help from blue-collar and non-college-educated whites.

“Moreover,” writes Dionne, “the left and center-left believe that public action is a positive good, that social solidarity is a realistic possibility, and that a society thrives when it shares benefits and burdens equitably. When we live in our bunkers of hatred, none of these dispositions has a chance.”

“Rural and small town voters don’t think either party is going to do anything for them, but they vote Republican because they think Democrats will do something to them: Take their guns or raise their taxes, or enact an environmental law that will put them out of work.”

Borrowing from a speech by Senator Sherrod Brown, a possible one—time candidate for president, Dionne quotes these stunning words from a speech the late Senator Ted Kennedy gave to the City Club of Cleveland during his 1968 presidential campaign, the day after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated:

“When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother,” Kennedy said, “when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens, but as enemies — to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered.”

This is the politics of Trump. Spur hate and invective. Use that to invigorate supporters to vote for you again.

With Dionne I say, even as we face the prospect of impeachment at home and war with Iran overseas, “We cannot let things go on this way.”

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, 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.

As we enter a new year, one in which we will be voting for president, I ask, what is the alternative to Donald Trump who stands, for me, as the worst president in U.S. history?\

One problem is that Trump’s excesses are exactly what draws many voters to him. He spreads dissension, then capitalizes on that dissension and Trumpians follow him hook, line and sinker.

In the headline to this blog, I write the word “if” in regard to voting in the 2020 election. But the fact is that I will be voting.

I’m just not sure for whom.

Of one thing, I am sure. My vote will not go to Trump.

He cannot be trusted to put the country’s good ahead of his own. The impeachment process, now grinding forward in Washington, D.C., shows the extreme extent of his misdeeds, though his defenders in the U.S House and Senate continue to sing his praises in an apparent effort to curry political favor from him.

Here is the way Washington Post editorial writers put it in assessing the affirmative House vote on impeachment:

“…it is our view that more than enough proof exists for the House to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, based on his own actions and the testimony of the 17 present and former administration officials who courageously appeared before the House Intelligence Committee.”

Because the U.S. Senate is not likely to convict Trump –- if there even will be a Senate trial as leaders in the House and Senate cannot agree on a process for it, as they have just returned from a Christmas break — the chances are that Trump will be on the ballot in 2020.

We don’t know who the standard bearer will be for Democrats, nor whether any third-party candidate will rise to the occasion, though the latter is not likely.

A new development is roiling the presidential sweepstakes. It is Trump’s decision to take out an Iran military leader who, it is clear, had murdered many Americans over the last years in that war-torn region. Still the take-out decision prompted many to question both the decision and Trump’s ability to manage the inevitable consequences of it.

In the Washington Post this morning, columnist Joe Scarborough contends that no one should count on Trump’s ability because of his “ignorance.” “The danger posed by that ignorance,” Scarborough wrote, “is matched daily by the crises created by Trump’s own erraticism. His performance as commander in chief has been shaped by a collection of scattered grievances, emotional impulses and random tweets. As the Financial Times’ Philip Stephens had said of Trump’s foreign policy, ‘Looking for a framework is like searching for symmetrical patterns in a bowl of spaghetti.’”

So, all things considered, I won’t vote for Trump. If a far left Democrat such as Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is on the ballot, I won’t vote for that person either.

I might have to throw away my vote, which might end up being the ethical action to take.

While all of this is pending, here are the types of credentials I would look for in a candidate to lead the free world as U.S. president:

• Someone who works to tell the truth, striving for accuracy and context.
• Someone who puts the good of the nation ahead of personal aggrandizement.
• Someone who works to find the smart middle on pressing public policy issues, not just a position that serves his or her base or political party.
• Someone who demonstrates an ability to disagree agreeably.
• Someone who capitalizes on private sector experience for the public sector good.
• Someone who reads and studies to illustrate an intent to grasp history and policy.

Sound like the buffoon in the White House? No.

Sound like the far-left candidates who want to make the U.S. into a government-run enterprise? No.

But this is type of person I would look for vote when the time comes to vote later this year.

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, 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.

Duplicity #1 — Senator Lindsay Graham: The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart writes this:

“Senator Lindsey O. Graham is a curious fellow. One year, he’s warning of the dangers that then-candidate Donald Trump posed to the Republican Party. The next, year he’s defending Trump and bragging that I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror should articles of impeachment against Trump come to the Senate.

“Or, as Jennifer Rubin (another Post writer) more aptly put it, Graham is in the throes of “boot-licking and willful ignorance of a ‘quid pro quo.’ It’s all so sad and shameful — for him, his party and our nation.”

Comment: To Graham, I say vote your conscience on the Trump impeachment, whatever that is. Reflect on your position and endeavor to employ a conscience, if you have one.

Duplicity #2: Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader: Like Graham, McConnell has tossed his sacred Senate role on impeachment – be an impartial juror – out the window.

He has announced that he will design a Senate impeachment process in complete concert with the White House.

Say what?

However he chooses to vote – no doubt not to convict Trump – he should feel a sense of constitutional obligation to design a fair and equitable process. But he won’t.

This has prompted Post columnist Max Boot to say that “the only principle Republicans have left is partisanship.”

Boot continues:

“… Republicans fervently denounce the mythical Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and then turn around and argue that President Trump has the right — nay, the obligation — to demand Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election.”

Comment: The farther we go in the post-House impeachment process, the more Trump looks guilty. The New York Times produced a piece of solid journalism a few days ago when it chronicled the time after Trump “withholding aid decision” as all of the White House worked to cover-up Trump’s illegal actions.

Duplicity #3: The way Republicans now handle impeachment: Based on words written by the columnist Boot, the very same Republicans who now accuse Democrats of wanting to impeach Trump from the start were intent on impeaching President Barack Obama from the start.

Further, Republicans now think that compliance with House subpoenas is strictly optional, but they once held Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with House subpoenas.

Comment: As the saying goes, “consistency can be the hobgoblin of small minds.” But it also is true that, in politics, your record follows you around. When Democrats or Republicans do one thing one minute and then the reverse the next minute their credibility comes into question unless they appear to have a good reason for the changed view. So far, those who are changing have no good reason…just partisan game-playing.

Duplicity #4: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s toing and froing: It would hard to write about duplicity without citing Warren. She rose to new heights – depths? – recently when she went after another candidate, Pete Buttigieg, for accepting political contributions from wealthy donors.

Well, it was exactly what she has done and continues to do. Buttigieg called her out effectively for her duplicity.

Comment: I would tell Warren to focus on issues – issues that matter to regular Americans – rather than to engage in such obvious duplicity.

My conclusion to all this is that consistency matters. If it cannot be maintained, then those who believe they must change should reckon with the need to provide a solid rationale for the change.

And, duplicity is not a Republican or Democrat issue.  It goes both ways.  Those who commit duplicity deserve to explain why.

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, 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.

While the political world, if not the entire world, is focusing on the risks and rewards of U.S. action to take out, by drone attack, a terrorist in Iran, perhaps provoking a wider war there, I focus again today on health care policy.

If you read the Wall Street Journal over the last few days, it is possible to conclude that health care has returned to being a major issue for candidates running for president or for officials serving in Congress.

With impeachment, health care issues were relegated to the sidelines for several weeks.

Health care was at or near the top eAlhHHa few weeks ago when Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren made headlines, not always positive ones for her, by releasing a plan showing how she would fund Medicare for All. The numbers didn’t stack up under scrutiny.

As has been the case in the past, my view – as I labor under a mistaken notion that my views matter at all — is that the typical health care debates suffer from a critical flaw. The flaw is opposition to what should be key tenet of any health care system – requiring buying health insurance “to make sure everyone is in the insurance pool.”

Getting everyone in the pool (including government programs to help those who don’t have enough money to buy coverage) is the only way to spread the risk – and, along the way, have at least a chance to reduce costs.

Without a mandate, those who happen to have insurance will pay huge sums for those who don’t.

In the past, I have used a comparison to automobile insurance – if you drive, you are required to provide insurance and, if you don’t, you pay a penalty.

Why not same for health insurance, as in – if you live, you have to have insurance coverage and, if you don’t, you pay a penalty.

Of course, my proposition for a “mandate” doesn’t go down well along the political trail. After all, it is another government mandate, which is enough to quell talk of it, almost regardless of where you fall on the spectrum.

Still, Bobby Jindal, the former Louisiana governor and presidential aspirant several years ago, showed up this week with a piece in the Wall Street Journal under the headline – “How the GOP Can Win on Health Care.”

His points, however, don’t just apply to Republicans; they work for anyone interested in making progress on the issue.

Here is a summary of Jindal’s prescriptions:

• Democrat presidential candidates are repeating one of President Barack Obama’s worst mistakes, one that arguably cost Democrats the 2010 midterms. Rather than focusing on bringing down medical costs — which are ever on the rise — Democrats are pushing policies that primarily aim to expand coverage and shift costs to taxpayers.
• As Obama did, the Democrat presidential hopefuls are pushing massive health-care overhauls, but paying only lip service to cutting costs. It’s now evident that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did nothing to bend the price curve down, as Obama promised it would. One look at the math underlying Warren’s Medicare for All proposAl should dispel any illusions that the new plans will be any better.
• Most Americans like their health insurance as it is. Their complaints revolve around high out-of-pocket drug prices, deductibles and hospital bills. Insurers are increasing cost-sharing across health-care plans in an effort to curtail premium prices and tamp down overuse. Even a good policy won’t give you much relief from high deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.
• Those who represent us have an opportunity to take the initiative on health care by focusing on what Americans actually want: Lower prices with minimal disruption. Congress recently took incremental steps in the year-end funding bill by repealing unpopular ACA taxes on medical devices and plans, but it failed to come to an agreement on the bigger problems of surprise billing and prescription-drug costs.
• Those with an interest in progress can craft a well-balanced, market-oriented mechanism to protect patients from surprise costs. Many insured patients are shocked to receive enormous bills from air-ambulance providers, emergency-room doctors, and anesthesiologists after a trip to the emergency room or a visit to what they assumed was an in-network provider but turned out not to be. These surprise bills, which can total thousands of dollars, are sent when particular providers are not in the patient’s insurance network, even though the hospital in which they work might be.

Jindal, a Republican, posits this point: “If Republicans don’t address voters’ frustrations, the public may be forced to choose more-radical options out of desperation. The best way to prevent a government-run health system is to offer solutions that lower prices based on competition and transparency.”

He has a good point, but, in the end, the basic issue should not just sit on the table: Require purchasing health care coverage so everyone has skin in the game.

And, this is an issue that should motivate everyone – Republicans and Democrats alike – who want solutions from middle, not the extremes of either far right or the far left.

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, 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.

This, remember is one of three departments I run with a free hand to do as I wish.

If that sounds like Donald Trump, forgive me.

I disavow any comparisons between me, a solid citizen, and Trump, an obviously un-solid one, if he, in fact, can be called a citizen in the first place.

Back to bits and pieces.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) made a good point this week when it wrote this:

“So vast is the wealth generated by the U.S. market economy that in 2019 Americans could afford to spend nearly $100 million just on a campaign to criticize it. Actually, the presidential campaign of Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one dedicated to attacking the free choices of free people. But among the contenders for the Democratic nomination, the Marxist millionaire is the king of campaign cash.”

Comment: Sanders and his kin on the left wing side of the Democrat presidential sweepstakes, Senator Elizabeth Warren, make a habit of decrying the fact that many people in this country have managed to accumulate wealth by dint of hard work and effort.

Call it capitalism, a word that does not cross of lips of Sanders, Warren and those on the far left who advocate socialism – or least a government in charge of all things.

Of course, duplicity reigns when they seek political contributions from those with money even as they lodge harsh criticisms of the same people.

2020 PRESIDENTIAL SWEEPSTAKES: Also from the Wall Street Journal:

“As 2020 begins, voters who say that their overriding objective is to remove the current president should wonder: Is it wise to hitch their wagons to any candidate whose agenda radiates, and requires, extravagant confidence in government’s ability to radically rearrange the United States’ most complex processes, from the allocation of economic resources to the provision of health care?

“Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is showing remarkable resilience, coronary and political, after his October myocardial infarction. This is encouraging not because the nation should swap one form of economic illiteracy for another, replacing a florid, angry protectionist with a florid, angry socialist. Rather, it is encouraging because Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren continue to divide, more or less evenly, the “let’s give government lots more to do” constituency. The longer this balance persists, the more time that normal — meaning not very agitated or attentive — voters have to rally around candidates who do not make prudent people wince.”

Comment: Great point by the WSJ. Americans who don’t pander to either side of political debate want someone who “doesn’t make them wince.” They want someone with character in the Oval Office – character and credentials to lead the country in a solid direction…neither far right nor far left. But the center.

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, 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.

American humorist Dave Barry always writes a “decade in review” piece for the Washington Post and he did so again this year.

Barry’s piece is always worth reading.

Especially if you want to start or end your day with huge laughs, some of them at your own expense.

Barry succeeds as few others do these days in calling all of us to put in context the troubling issues we face, including in regard to government and how we think about government.

So, with thanks to Barry and the Post, here are a few of his zingers.

• January begins with the federal government once again in the throes (whatever a “throe” is) of a partial shutdown, which threatens to seriously disrupt the lives of all Americans who receive paychecks from the federal government.
• Finally the president and Congress reach a temporary budget agreement that will not address the border situation but will enable them to resume spending insane amounts of money that the nation does not have until such time as they are able to reach a permanent budget agreement enabling them to continue spending insane amounts of money that the nation does not have, this being the primary function of our federal leadership.
• Winter storms blast the Midwest, causing havoc in Iowa as snowdrifts close major highways and strand hundreds of Democrat presidential contenders in rural communities with limited supplies of voters. In one harrowing incident, a farmer and his family are trapped inside their home for six hours while Cory Booker pounds on the front door, demanding to be let in so he can outline his plan to reduce income inequality. “We tried to escape by the back door,” the farmer later tells reporters,“ but Amy Klobuchar was waiting out there with a seven-point program to rebuild America’s infrastructure.”
• In other political developments, President Trump, faced with mounting hostility from congressional Democrats, spends several days vigorously attacking … John McCain. For the record, McCain (A) was a Republican and (B) died in 2018. Nobody can say for certain whether the president (A) is playing some kind of four-dimensional political chess or (B) has the reasoning skills of a Chihuahua on meth.
• In other political news, Joe Biden launches his estimated 17th presidential campaign, with the slogan: “Let Uncle Joe Give You a Great Big Hug.” Biden immediately becomes the leader of the crowded Democrat field based on the fact that his name sounds vaguely familiar.
• For his part, President Trump launches his 2020 re-election bid with a rally in Orlando attended by 246 million people, as confirmed by Fox News.
• The president also finds time in his busy July schedule to issue tweets attacking — among other targets — Baltimore, the Federal Reserve, the mayor of San Juan, CNN, the mayor of London, Paul Ryan, Fox News (!) and Sweden, but if we’re going to go into detail on every single one of the president’s Twitter beefs we will never get through this year. Suffice it to say that the Resistance is so frantically busy refuting Trump tweets — this being the activity that consumes 99.9 per cent of the Resistance’s time and mental energy — that toward the end of the month prominent Democrats find themselves reflexively defending the integrity and moral righteousness of Al Sharpton.
• The nation is shocked by two horrific mass shootings, which spur a Serious National Conversation about gun violence, in which sincere and committed individuals on both sides — at long last — openly and honestly talk to people on their own side about how stupid and evil everybody on the other side is.
• President Trump is facing a major crisis involving the crucial issue of whether Alabama was, or was not, ever actually threatened by Hurricane Dorian. The crisis erupts on September 1, when, with Dorian moving toward the U.S. mainland, the president tweets that Alabama is among the states that will “most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.” Minutes later the National Weather Service in Birmingham responds with a statement that “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.”
• Bill de Blasio drops out of the Democratic presidential race, bitterly disappointing the residents of New York when they learn that Bill plans to resume mayoring them.
• In a surprise move, Trump orders the release of a rough transcript of “the call,” which proves conclusively whatever you want it to prove depending on whether you are on Side A or Side B. Congressional Democrats declare that it is a Smoking Gun, which means that, at last, it is IMPEACHMENT TIME, BABY, AND THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT. Trump declares that this is just another WITCH HUNT and emits an unusually high volume of tweets in which he sounds increasingly like a derelict arguing with himself in an alley next to a convenience store, but not as coherent.
• For the Democrats, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Trump’s poll numbers are down. The bad news is that the Democrats are … the Democrats. Their front-runner, Joe Biden, continues to struggle on the campaign trail, as exemplified by an appearance at a 7-Eleven store in Waterloo, Iowa, during which he addresses the slurpee machine as “your excellency.”
• It is finally IMPEACHMENT TIME FOR REAL, ALMOST, as the House Committee on Endless Squabbling holds a classic congressional hearingpalooza featuring Bombshell Testimony, Gaveling, Points of Order, Yielding of Time, False Civility, Really Long Questions That Are Not Actually Questions and all the other elements that would make for riveting drama if everybody on the planet didn’t already know the outcome, specifically that the Democrats would conclude that the president committed impeachable offenses, and the Republicans would conclude that he didn’t. When it’s all over, the public remains divided exactly as it was between the people who loathe Trump and the people who loathe the people who loathe Trump.
• In other political news, Joe Biden, seeking to add some “zing” to his presidential campaign, tours Iowa in a bus sporting, in big letters, his new slogan: “No Malarkey!” (“Malarkey” is an ancient Gaelic word meaning “clue.”) This slogan was selected after being tested on a focus group of voters, half of whom were senior citizens and the other half of whom were dead. The runner-up slogans were “You’re Darned Tooting He Can Cut the Mustard!” and “Stay Off His Lawn!”

  Write on, Mr. Barry.

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, 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.

The New Year has arrived and, with it, from some quarters, we are hearing predictions of gloom and doom, especially with regard to the federal government.

But, if you want to have a good experience on this first day of 2020, you might take time to watch a You Tube video on a startling development in Congress. A group of about 25 members of Congress – both Democrats and Republicans — gather once every week, at an early morning hour, for prayer and discussion, including, even, singing a hymn together.

Incredible.

Two senators were interviewed by a CBS reporter for the interview that made it onto You Tube:

• Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware
• James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma

Even as various issues – impeachment, abortion, gun control, homosexual rights, race relations, immigration and others – threaten to tear the country apart, not to mention create dissension in Congress, Coons and Lankford and a number of other colleagues have found a way to talk to each other and to listen, even amidst the din of dissension.

Hearing them discuss key traits that should mark Members of Congress sparks hope that there is a better way to govern and be governed.

Humility.

Mutual respect.

Listening.

Finding middle ground (that doesn’t force compromising values).

Both Coons and Lankford, from different spots on the political spectrum, not to mention very different states, criticize what they call “the cottage industry“ of lobbying groups in the Nation’s Capital that exist to spread disagreement and dissension, not find solutions to pressing national problems.

Those groups benefit when problems are not solved.

It’s time, they say, for a different approach and, without suggesting that they have a set of magic answers, they advocate “living your faith.” Or, they would add, if you don’t have what could be called “faith,” live with respect for fellow human beings as human beings.

Seeing and hearing Coons and Lankford on You Tube was a great way for me to start this New Year.

It could be for you, too.

It only takes 30 minutes and it will be time well spent.

Here is the identifier to access the video:

https://youtu.be/xt7UcjPP6uQ