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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

There may not be a good reason to write about the shutdown again, but I feel compelled to do so, if only to criticize the tendency of many in the media to score the recent fiasco by naming winners and losers.

There is a tendency for these shutdown watchers to contend that President Donald Trump lost and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won as the federal government prepared to re-open next Monday.

That’s unfortunate because, for me, it was Americans who lost as both Trump and Pelosi, augmented by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, behaved like immature juveniles as they took the country through a needless process to define what they wanted. They wanted winners and losers, not what many in the country wanted, which was smart negotiators who would keep the public interest first and foremost.

Smart public officials should want to do the public’s business and, when they cannot win outright, find the smart middle ground.

Trump, Pelosi and Schumer are not smart officials. They are stalwarts for their side of the political spectrum and the general public be damned.

All of this occurred as the president signed a short-term funding bill late yesterday without money for his border wall. He had little political choice. Most voters blamed him for the shutdown, and the costs to the public had begun to build. Flight delays multiplied as air-traffic controllers called in sick while the White House’s leading economist said the shutdown was hurting the economy. Perhaps someone told Trump that presidents get the blame when the economy suffers.

All of this was predictable, since shutdowns never work politically for the party seen to trigger them. Trump’s strategy, to the extent he had one, was to hold his breath until Pelosi gave in. She merely had to do nothing to win, but I give her no credit for her juvenile behavior.

As it ended and even as we face another shutdown three weeks down the road, what can we learn from the recent one.

A possible answer to the question is headline is – nothing.

Another possible answer is that we now now that “our” leaders in Washington, D.C., on both sides of the aisle, are not leaders in the true sense of that word. They only want to WIN for their side.

And, a final answer – one I hope D.C. “leaders” would learn – is that stalemates such as the shutdown can only be solved by compromise in the middle.

That should be the nature of politics in the first place – the “art of the compromise.”

Compromise would require leaders of all persuasions to get into a room – make it a round table to be sure — and hammer out a deal in the middle. On one side, you give something and get something. On the other side, the same.

The result is a move forward, not stalemate.

To provide an idea of compromise, let me cite one example during my 25+ years as a lobbyist at the State Capitol in Salem.

It dealt with taxes on hospitals and health insurers that the governor and legislative leaders in Salem wanted to impose in order to come up with a trove of new “state general fund” dollars that could garner federal match under the Medicaid program.

A critic could say that the goal of the proposal was just “to get the federal dollars.” A supporter could say the goal was to obtain state and federal money to expand care for low-income Oregonians.

As a representative of both hospitals and insurers, I was involved in negotiations over whether to move forward on the taxes, and, if so, how to move.

My starting point, along with other health care lobbyists, was not to move forward at all. Once in place, we knew the taxes would never go away and that hospital and insurer tax money would be diverted to non-health care purposes. Plus, taxes would increase health care costs.

The starting point for legislators who had proposed the bill was that low-income health care mattered, so they wanted to get the “new money.”

With a stalemate in view, a decision was made to convene a group of negotiators from both sides who would try to hammer out a deal in the middle. I supported the approach and that’s what happened – a compromise, which ended up being approved by the House and the Senate and signed by the governor.

What this example shows is that, if persons involved in the public process would commit to working to find the smart middle, that middle could be found.

I wish the “leaders” in Washington, D.C. would cultivate their own commitment to compromise for the benefit of the country, not just their own political bases.

A footnote: In the above example, lobbyists like me insisted that the compromise be memorialized in a“memorandum of understanding” that would be signed by all parties. Good idea, but unfortunately, in the end, the governor and legislators failed to live up to their end of the deal, which proves two things – (a) a deal might be fashioned properly, but is only as good as the commitment of those who signed up for it, and (b) it is almost impossible for the private sector to reach agreement on a deal with government because a “new emergency” always crops up. This issue – the incredible obstacles to cutting a deal with government that remains in place is a top for further blog. To her credit, the only legislator who expressed misgivings about not living up to a deal she signed was Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose. She deserves credit for her honesty and ethical behavior.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

After serving as a “walking marshal” for four rounds of the recent Desert Classic in La Quinta, California, I came away with a variety of impressions.

Before listing them, it is important to add that these impressions are just that – impressions. They are not any kind of random sampling of what you would see at a PGA tournament.

I had an inside view, walking inside the ropes even as I tried to stay out of the way of the pros.

That said, here are my impressions:

• I am not sure that any pro golfer today mimics Arnold Palmer’s ability to relate to the golfing public. It is possible that some players may grow into such a role. But doing so would require pros to understand that their vocation relies, in some substantial part, on fan support. It also is possible that some pros are haughty enough to believe they don’t need to honor the fans.
• Of the nine pros I followed over four rounds, the one who seemed the best able to relate to the crowds, however limited they were, was Brendan Steele, a journeyman who has won a couple times on tour. He interacted well with his fellow players, which, on the day I walked him, included two amateurs and one pro. He also thanked many of the volunteers, including me, who were there to support the tournament, including the children’s charities it favors.
• Of the nine pros I walked with over four rounds, the one who demonstrated the worst, unfriendly behavior was Jason Duffner. He has won five times on tour, all the while developing an off-beat style. When I walked with him, Steele and two amateurs, he appeared sullen and unfriendly. He didn’t even relate much to his caddy and tended to walk on the opposite side of the fairways in relation to others in his group. I don’t care if I ever watch him play golf again.
• This impression is one I may have conveyed before, but, as a person who likes to focus on golf rules, I was impressed with how many pros I watched left the flagstick in the hole as they putted. Such a move didn’t used to be allowed, but now is under the revised golf rules effective January 1, 2019.

Even the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) devoted space this morning to a review of the subject to indicate that, to golfers at least, the flagstick in or out is a big deal. Here is an excerpt of the story carried by the WSJ.

“The sudden freedom to leave the flagstick in has left golfers pondering whether doing so would increase their likelihood of holing putts.

“Until recently, the only notable research on the subject was nearly three decades old. In 1990, the renowned short-game coach Dave Pelz published a study in Golf magazine that found that 33 per cent more putts rolled in when the flagstick was in than when it was out. The study, which rolled nearly 11,000 balls at various speeds, distances and conditions, was intended to show the benefit of chipping with the flagstick in—which was legal.

“Though most players viewed the flagstick as an impediment that could deflect the ball from the hole, Pelz said it more often had the opposite effect. Because there is still room for the ball to drop between the flagstick and the edge of a hole—and because standard, fiberglass flagsticks have some give to them—Pelz said the stick can function like a backboard in basketball.

“Some golfers are shying away from it for a more aesthetic reason. In their minds, putting with the flagstick in just doesn’t look like the sort of thing a real golfer would do. “I can’t really take myself seriously if I kept the pin in,” Justin Thomas said. “I mean, it would just be such a weird picture.”

“The weirdness extends to the amateur level, where golf’s governing bodies are hoping the rules change will speed up play. Bryan Rodgers, a 60-year-old financial advisor in Knoxville, Tennessee, said the new rule created confusion when he played in a recent foursome. ‘We were just handing the flagstick back and forth to each other,’ he said, as some players wanted it in and others wanted it out. ‘To be honest, I thought it actually slowed us up.’”

There. How’s that for focusing on a major subject – leaving the flagstick in or out on a golf hole. At least focusing on this critical issue allows a person – me — to avoid thinking about the government shutdown, which still cannot be solved by so-called “leaders” in Washington, D.C.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Forgive me, I am writing about the government yet again.

But, if we needed more evidence of the inability of the nation’s political leaders to cut a deal to end the government shutdown, we got it this week.

President Donald Trump, who fancies himself as a “great deal-maker,” actually made what I consider to be a decent proposal to leaders in Congress. In return for getting money for “his wall,” Trump said he would commit to three years of protection for “dreamers,” persons who been in the U.S. for years, and, it is contended, properly I believe, should not be subject to deportation.

It could have been the first step toward deal, but House Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, poured cold water on it immediately, saying it was a “non-starter.” They said they wouldn’t even consider it.

Better, I suggest, for them to have said something like, “Good start. If you commit to permanent protection, not just several years of protection, we can talk.”

As William Gallston wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: “As the government shutdown enters its second month, our divided political system appears no closer to a resolution than when this disgraceful and unnecessary standoff began. There’s an obvious way to end it—and to ensure a fiasco like this never happens again.

“President Trump very much wants $5.7 billion for his border wall. Democrats very much want a permanent solution for 1.8 million immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, known as “Dreamers.” Democrats of all stripes oppose the wall. A majority of Republicans favor both the wall and permanent relief for the Dreamers, but a fervent minority of Republicans—Trump’s base—denounce even temporary measures for the Dreamers.

“Party discipline in the House has reached quasi-parliamentary levels that British Prime Minister Theresa May must envy. So there are only two legislative routes to end the stalemate: Either one side capitulates, or a bi-partisan group of senators takes the initiative that their leaders have spurned.

“If there were serious political leadership in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would co-sponsor legislation pairing $5.7 billion for the wall and permanent legal status for the Dreamers.”

Galston continues, including with a new idea to end shutdowns now and in the future: “As with most truces, acceptance (of a compromise) will be painful. For most Democrats, the wall is more than a policy dispute; it is the symbol of what they loathe most about Trump. For many Republicans, the wall stands for resistance against what they regard as Democrats’ unreasoning hostility to the president, and permanent relief for the Dreamers is one piece of the amnesty they have spent their careers opposing.

“But this is precisely the point. The issue that triggered the current stalemate cannot be resolved with a mere ‘split the difference’ funding agreement. Achieving the comprehensive immigration reform that has tied Congress in knots for years will require each side to accept something it regards as morally troubling.

“Congress also has the power to ensure that this current battle becomes the shutdown to end all shutdowns. As early as 1981, the U.S. comptroller general suggested that Congress enact a mechanism to prevent political disagreements from interrupting the basic functions of government, a device that became known as the ‘automatic continuing resolution.’ In brief, Congress would pass a law stipulating that, if it could not reach an agreement before a current appropriations bill expired, funding nonetheless would continue in a manner the law specifies. “

Galston has good points, both on a deal that could exist, as well as on a way to avoid more stupid shutdowns.

It strikes me that there could be several reasons why Democrats are not willing to deal.

First, they want Trump to cave and, if he doesn’t, they are happy to keep him without a deal because they believe he is suffering in the realm of public relations and political perception.

Second, they may believe – with some good reason — that they cannot trust Trump who often sees only a new floor with any compromise proposal, not a done deal. Such is the reality of negotiating with a hugely unpredictable Trump.

Third, they don’t know how to strike a deal themselves, one that would benefit part of their core political constituency. They are like “I’ll take my toys and go home” leaders, if you could call that leadership.

Meanwhile, Trump is coming under a bit pressure, even from those on the right, to say it’s time to end the shutdown, as well as trade wars, especially with China, for the benefit of the country’s economy. To a “normal president,” that could make political sense. To Trump, it may not.

So, what we have is a bunch of juveniles in the White House and Congress who cannot get any kind of act together for the benefit of the public — and at least one of the major troubling realities is that economic growth rides on the outcome.

I say we need mature, reasonable leaders on all sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.   To date, we have far less.

To close, consider this quote from Warren Buffett who included it in one of his books back in 2006:

“You can’t make a good deal with a bad person.”

Just go both ways with that quote. To me, it applies to Trump, it applies to Pelosi, and it applies to Schumer.

Save us all!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

There should be no surprise if you read a story in The Oregonian newspaper about what the Oregon Legislature might do this year in Salem as lawmakers start what is likely to be a five-month session at the Capitol.

They will make a turn to the left.

If nothing else, that is logical given what happened in the fall elections. Democrats won a new four-year term in the Governor’s Office, took a super-majority in the Oregon House, and won a similar super-majority in the Oregon Senate.

That means Democrats, most of whom tend to be left of center, can do what they want in the next five months without trying to find Republicans votes. That includes, especially, proposals for tax increases, of which there appear to be many.

Now, to be fair, it is proper to report that Senate President Peter Courtney – this will be his eighth long session in the Senate’s top job – often looks for bi-partisan support before bringing pieces of legislation up for final vote in the Senate. Looks, but does not always find.

That may be his instinct again, but, if the Senate gets tax increase bills from the House – tax increases must be considered first in the House – he’ll face substantial pressure to schedule Senate floor action even if there are no Republican votes in sight.

By noting that the governor and the Legislature are turning to the left, I mean no disrespect. That, in fact, is the price of the recent election.

Still, from my position in the cheap seats, I hope that Democrats would find a way to work with Republicans on at least a few issues. That’s the way our democracy is supposed to work, but we’ll see if a bi-partisan has any chance to work in Salem.

From the Oregonian, here is a list of what Governor Kate Brown and Democrat leaders in the House and Senate hope to be able to do this session:

* Governor Brown says she hopes the Legislature’s first order of business will be to pass a tax package to continue funding the state’s Medicaid program. The proposal here will be to pass taxes on major Oregon hospitals, taxes on commercial health insurance bills, and new taxes on tobacco.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was involved in lobbying the early stages of the hospital and insurance taxes a number of years ago and I came away with substantial questions about the worth of such taxes.

On one hand, the health care taxes are an expedient to create a new pot of state money that can be used to garner federal matching dollars under Medicaid. If the “new money” goes to low-income health care, good.

But over the years, once the new taxes begin to produce revenue, there is no way to assure that the money goes to meet the purpose of the taxes in the first place. He money just becomes, to use a government budget word, “fungible” general fund dollars that could end up anywhere in the overall budget.

Still, I would count, now, on the new taxes to be in place by the end of the legislative session.

* Democrats say they are intent on passing a requirement for guns to be stored safely, out of the reach of children, and they want to restrict gun access for people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them. Those goals will go down hard with Republicans from rural Oregon.

* Brown and legislative Democrats want to raise at least $2 billion per biennium in new business taxes to spend on improving schools. New tax revenue could also help the state cover hefty payments that schools and other governments must make to the public employee pension fund. Most of the money would likely come from a gross receipts or value added tax, but Democrats are eyeing a multitude of tax increases.

The proceeds from the new taxes, at least in theory, would be devoted to shrinking class sizes, adding days to the school year and expanding career-technical education, all laudable goals. But, so far, not enough attention has been paid to the cost of the new taxes – costs in the way of businesses not creating as many new jobs as they might do without the taxes.

* Leading Democrats want to impose statewide rent controls, a national first, and ban most evictions unless the landlord shows cause. Tenant rights activists are split on the proposal, which also maintains a ban on local rent control policies.

* House Speaker Tina Kotek,  D-Portland, has proposed allowing duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes on  all single-family lots in cities with more than 10,000 residents. The goal is to increase the housing supply and create lower-cost rental options, but the proposal could face stiff opposition from neighborhood groups.

* Kotek, Courtney and the governor all say they want to pass a carbon cap-and-spend program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Brown has proposed giving Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp direct allocations of emissions allowances instead of forcing the companies to purchase them in state auctions, a strategy that could make it easier to pass the plan.

* House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, also wants to scrap the state’s decades old non-unanimous jury law, which allows juries in most felony cases — aside from murder — to convict defendants with a 10-2 vote. The change will require an amendment to the Oregon Constitution, which Democratic leaders hope to refer to voters this session.

* Democrats have for years wanted to require Oregon employers to provide paid family and medical leave so, for example, parents can spend time with their new babies and people can take time off to care for sick family members. A bi-partisan work group has been discussing the issue but Williamson, who has championed the idea, was not brimming with optimism that it would pass this session.

If you look at this list of priorities, it is interesting to note the lack of any announced intent to take a critical look at current state spending. It’s as if the goal will be to continue state spending for another two years and tack numerous tax increases on top of that “business as usual approach.”

Senator Fred Giron, R-Stayton, showed up this week with a proposed bill he labeled a “zero-based budgeting bill.” It would require state agencies to justify all spending from the ground up instead of assuming the past budget, then adding to it. Don’t look for Girod’s bill go anywhere.

I know that many legislators from both sides of the political aisle would be capable to look at state budgets with a constructively critical eye. That includes legislators who serve on the Joint Ways and Means Committee (which handles the overall state budget).

If that kind of process were to go forward, it could even add a bit of political heft to the need for new taxes to fund K-12 education and low-income health care.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I have written about this subject before – changes in golf rules developed jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and Royal & Ancient (R&I), which were effective for the world as of January 1, 2019.

It’s worth writing again because of my experience over four days volunteering at a professional golf tournament, the 60^th annual Desert Classic in La Quinta, California. That’s because I saw first-hand implementation of and questions about the new rules from the players.

Example #1: During four days of serving as a walking marshal, most of the players in “my groups” left the flagstick in on long putts – usually at least 30 feet in length. Interesting.

This is one of the new rules – there is no problem if you hit the flagstick in the hole, even if you are putting. A major change.

Several players said leaving the flagstick in gave them a better feel for the line so far away from the hole.

Leaving in the flagstick in is now legal, but it also remains appropriate, (a) to have the flagstick tended, and (b) to take the flagstick out of the hole. On these two options, the deal is that you have to decide what you want to do before you play the shot.

Remember the case a few years when Phil Mickelson had his caddy, Jim McKay, run 100 yards up to a hole to tend the flagstick for a wedge into the green? Strange action then. As most would do, he could have left the flag in the hole. As he did, he was allowed to have it tended. Nothing about the rule changes would make Mickelson’s action illegal today.

Example #2: It used to be the case that, when you were dropping a ball, either from an unplayable lie or to get free relief from an permanent obstacle, you would drop from shoulder height. Before that, the drop was taken over your back.

Now, the new rules say you drop from knee height.

On the second day of my work at the Desert Classic, I was a walking marshal for a group that included Sungjae Im from Korea and Cameron Davis from Australia. At one point, after hitting into the water, Im took a drop from shoulder height.

Seeing that, Davis called out to him and gave Im the proper instructions about knee height. Im took another drop correctly and played on – no penalty.

In the Desert Classic, Mickelson, the newly-designated “ambassador” for the tournament, played very well, shooting, for example, 60 in his first round at La Quinta Country Club. I am a Mickelson fan, so sad to report that he came up a stroke short from winning the tournament.

In the Global Golf Post on-line publication the day after the tournament, Mickelson reported that he was uncomfortable with the new rules because, he said, he didn’t know them well enough yet. He said he hopes to be attend a USGA seminar on-site at a tournament to gain a more complete understanding because, he said, “it’s important to me.”

Good for Mickelson. Over his 25 years as touring golf pro, he has committed a few rules blunders, or, perhaps, he might say situations where he took advantage of what he thought the rules allowed. The most vivid example occurred when Mickelson hit a bad shot in a recent tournament, then hit the ball again before it stopped moving.

That produced a two-stroke penalty, though he later said he thought he operated within the rules to avoid an even worse situation because the ball that was moving would have ended up in a bad spot.

Mickelson’s new stated commitment to learn the new rules reflects well on his overall character.

One last point, though it’s not related to the new rules. On my days at the Desert Classic, it was interesting to note how many golfers use a claw grip to putt, which is an attempt to make sure the dominant hand, usually the right hand, doesn’t take over on the stroke. The claw is used by a number of veterans – Mickelson and Justin Rose come to mind – but it is not just the oldsters who use it. A growing number of younger players have opted to use the grip.

The claw has become my go-to grip, something I started about five or six years ago to avoid right hand yips problems. So, I now root for claw grip players.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Was I a key cog in the wheel?

Pick your image, but the answer was – and is — no. My reference is to a professional golf tournament in the California desert close to where I am spending the winter. As a volunteer, I covered the assignment of being one of many “walking marshals.” Did I matter? No. Was it a good, first-time experience? Yes.

If you are a golfer and ever want to be intimidated, just volunteer at a PGA golf tournament. You cannot believe how far and how straight the players fly the golf ball. Makes you want to take up another sport, though, of course, it needs to be added that the golf pros play a different game than the one we, as amateurs, play. I’ll stick with my brand of golf and continue to hope for the best.

Along with hundreds of others, I volunteered to spend large chunks of the last four days working at the 60^th annual Desert Classic in La Quinta, California.

There were 156 pros, plus, for the first three days of the tournament, two amateurs with each group of two pros. With such a large field over three courses, there were inevitable hitches, with an early one occurring through no fault of anyone – a one hour and 15 minute delay due to fog, which almost never is a threat in the desert.

As noted in the preamble to this blog, I usually write about two subjects – golf and public policy. This edition is obviously about golf as I share a few impressions of my days in the desert.

Day 1

I was assigned to be a walking marshal for a group that included two fairly well known pros, Brendan Steele and Jason Duffner. Steele played very well on a tough course, the Nicklaus Course at PGA West. Duffner played terribly, posting a 79, the highest score in the entire tournament on the first day.

• Steele appeared to have fun playing golf, talking amiably with his caddy and thanking all of us for volunteering. Duffner? No. Perhaps in part because he played so badly, he sulked around the course, appearing to have no fun as he remained aloof from everyone, including his playing partners and even his caddy. I don’t care if I ever watch him play again.
• In advance of the tournament, walking marshals were told that (a) they should walk inside the ropes, not on the fairway but in the rough, (b) they should report any unruly crowd behavior, (c) that they should not set foot on the greens; (d) that they should not attempt to engage players or caddies in conversation unless comments were directed to them by the players and caddies, (e) that they should keep their eyes on the spectators, not on the players as they played, (e) etc.
• The other walking marshal who worked with me violated all of these so-called “rules,” which I guess he considered as guidelines, not rules. Oh well, such is life.
• The biggest news of the day was that Phil Mickelson shot an incredible first round 60 – yes 60 – on the La Quinta Country Club course, the easiear of the course in the rotation, and the feat appeared to put him in a position to contend for the title come Sunday. I was on a different course, so I saw none of Mickelson’s feat, though it was the talk of the tournament on the first day.

Day 2

“My group” today had an international flavor – Cameron Davis from Australia and Sungjae Im from Korea. Both played well.

• Interesting to note that most pros over two rounds have left the pin on long putts, something they and we are allowed to do under the new golf rules.
• Speaking of rules, Im took a drop at one point from the old shoulder-high length. His opponent caught the mistake before Im hit his next shot, so he dropped again from knew height – also a new rule.
• The two players on this day and Steele on day #1 all appeared to tolerate well their amateur playing partners, though the amateurs tended, perhaps obviously, to make for a longer round. The inclusion of amateurs on the first three days of the Desert Classic is reported to be a reason why some pros don’t venture to the desert. But, of course, the field this year is not bad – Phil Mickelson, Justin Rose, John Rahm and Zack Johnson, among others.
• By the way, one purported fact I heard today was that it costs a bundle – more than I ever thought, so I won’t list a rumored number here – to play in the Desert Classic as an amateur. If there is good news here, it appears most of the money, however much it is, goes to charity. And, overall, the charity amount from the tournament this year will be beyond $1 million.

Day 3

My assignment on this day was to follow the group that included two pros – Steve Marino, who is trying to capitalize on the last tournament in his medical exemption status, and Tryone VanAsegen, who has a difficult name to pronounce. He hails from Texas.

• Marino shot a five-under score that put him in fourth place heading into the pro-only final round on Sunday. He has a shot to win or at least place second, which would yield to more starts on the tour. VanAswegen missed the cut.
• I was struck again by how many times the pro took advantage of the new rule change, which allows leaving the flagstick in the hole if they choose to do so. On almost putt longer than 30 feet over my three days on the course, the flag remained in the hole.
• My view? I would tend to take the fly out or at least have it tended on the theory that, if the ball hits the flagstick, it might ricochet away.

Day 4

As a surprise to me, figuring three days was enough, I was added to the list of volunteers for the tournament’s final round when the pros play without amateurs. The round occurs on the toughest of the three courses, the PGA Stadium Course.

• “My group” on this final day included three pros – Zack Johnson, Peter Malnati and Daniel Berger. Fun to watch each of them hit the tar out of the fall. If I had to pick a player to hit a shot to the green from about 100 hard, I’d choose Johnson. None played particularly well if shooting about 70 can be described as not playing particularly well.
• The instructions to us as “walking marshals” today seemed to me to make more sense than in previous rounds. With two walking marshals on each course, we were told that one of us should head down the fairway to the general landing spot for drives. The second would remain at the tee. Then, after the shots were hit, both of us would move down so we both, eventually, ended up near the green. Then, before everyone holed, one of us would head down the next fairway.
• We were told the PGA Tour had directed the revised process, which indicates that tour officials are in charge of everything at a tournament they control – and I mean everything.

So, in all of this, would I agree to volunteer again? Not sure. Probably today, as I recover from walking 18 holes four days in a row, I am about 50-50 for next year. Perhaps as more time goes by, I’ll be willing to volunteer again.

As for the end of the tournament, Mickelson, who shot the first round 60, came up one shot short. The winner, Adam Long, made a 14-foot birdie on the final hole after hitting a great second shot from a bad lie. It was a good story – underdog prevails over one of the best pros in the world. Still, I was rooting for Mickelson.

Enough. Tomorrow I go back to playing golf, not watching it.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime –

I am not the world’s greatest pro football fan, though I do watch games from time to time. On occasion, truth be told, I don’t make it through an entire game.

But now is an especially good time to watch as conference champions face off to decide who goes to the Super Bowl in February.

Why is it fun to watch now?

Sports columnist Jason Gay put it this way in the Wall Street Journal:

“It’s Yesterday vs. Tomorrow…Old Farts vs. The Future…Geezers vs. Generation Z…Flip Phones vs. iPhones…4:30 p.m. Dinners vs. 9:30 p.m. Dinners…Pickleball vs. Pokémon…DeLorean vs. Tesla…help me out here, gang…I need more hacky old-school clichés vs. hacky new-school clichés…”

“On one sideline, “Gay writes, “are two aging quarterbacks who remember what life was like way back in the olden days, when a human being woke up and walked down to the edge of the driveway to pick up a crude instrument of daily information known as a ‘print newspaper.’

“On the other sideline are two young, pre-ternatural quarterbacks who are never going to read this column, because it’s in a print newspaper.”

Gay’s reference, first, is to two old guy quarterbacks – Tom Brady for the New England Patriots and Drew Brees for the New Orleans Saints.

Second, Gay refers to two young quarterbacks who are making distinctive marks in their early seasons – Patrick Mahomes for the Kansas City Chiefs and Jared Goff for the Los Angeles Rams.

His metaphor about old guys with print newspapers and young guys without the same resonates with me. I have liked to get newsprint on my hands for my entire life, dating back to my days as a print journalist. However, of late I am forced to admit, I am tending to go more and more on line. Just shows that an old guy can learn new tricks.

As for the games this weekend, I hope Kansas City beats the Patriots (with all due respect to Brady) so we are able to see if Mahomes can reach and win the Super Bowl in his first year as a starting quarterback in the NFL – and add to his incredible total of 50 touchdown passes.

I also hope that Saints beat the Rams (with all due respect to Goff) so we can get a chance to watch Brees try to win another Super Bowl. He already has cemented his move to the NFL Hall of Fame, given his career-long, top-level performance.

Without the physical stature of some other quarterbacks, Brees has performed amazingly well.

So, go Mahomes. And go Brees.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

President Donald Trump fancies himself as a great deal maker.

If that’s true, why can’t he use his vast power to reach a deal with the Democrats in Congress to re-open the federal government? Well, there could be several reasons:

• One is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that, the longer shutdown goes, the more political discredit will flow to Trump’s account.
• A second is that the shutdown plays into the hands of some Trump supporters who want a smaller government, with the shutdown being a blunt force way to achieve it,
• The third is that no one is an artful dealmaker – not Trump, not Pelosi, not Senator Chuck Schumer, minority leader in the Senate.

If they knew how to cut a deal, they’d do so quickly. There is a rather elegant solution waiting in the wings. It is this:

1. Give Trump the money he wants for “his wall.”
2. Give the Democrats protection for the so-called “dreamers,” persons, especially children, who may have been in this country for years, but now need protection.

Senator John Mark Warner, who spent years in business before being elected to Congress as a Democrat from Virginia, gave some “free advice” in a piece that ran in the Washington Post.

Here’s what Warner said:

“It has become clear,” Warner wrote, that the president never learned lessons that successful executives know by heart:

“• Always try to find a solution in which both sides come out ahead. Trump has refused to compromise or negotiate. As a result, he’s increasingly isolated in his demand that Congress fund his border wall. Each day it gets harder to find a face-saving solution to end his pointless standoff.

“• Don’t surround yourself with yes men or women. You need smart experts who aren’t afraid to tell you when they think you’re making a mistake. Trump relies on a circle of sycophants, far-right lawmakers, and TV and radio hosts who either share his views or won’t voice their disagreements.

“• Empower the people on your team. The president has made it clear that no one can credibly speak on his behalf. First, he indicated before Christmas that he would sign a continuing resolution the Senate unanimously passed—only to oppose the bill, leaving the majority leader holding the bag. He sent Mike Pence to the Hill to make an offer—then kneecapped the vice president by rejecting the proposal on national television. Later he undercut an attempt at negotiation by his Senate whisperer Lindsey Graham. The result? The President is left with nobody who can make sure the job gets done.

“• Never burn bridges. Successful business leaders know that if a deal goes south, another is always around the corner. Trump has been so vicious during the shutdown that he might have crippled his ability to get things done in Congress. The White House keeps saying it wants to cut bipartisan deals on issues like infrastructure, but the president’s behavior suggests that he’ll continue to treat congressional Democrats the way he treated the contractors he stiffed on so many of his real-estate projects.

“• Respect your workforce. When I was governor, we had to make painful cuts to balance the budget, which meant asking employees to do more with less. I made every effort to spend time with those affected and listen to their concerns. In contrast, Mr. Trump has shown no empathy for the 800,000 public servants who are going without pay. He’s been downright cavalier when asked how thousands of my constituents are supposed to pay their bills while he holds them hostage.”

Warner concludes with this interesting note:

“I don’t know how much longer this is going to go on, or how it’s going to end. But I do know this: Business-school professors and management consultants will have a case study of a self-proclaimed deal-maker with some of the worst negotiating and management instincts of all time.”

Now, to be fair, I would chastise Pelosi and Schumer as well for being bad negotiators in that they apparently cannot see “what they could get” out of a deal – what they could get for their political supporters.

To all, I say, find an elegant solution – one that is a winner for both sides and move on to dealing with more basic issues facing this country.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It was raining down here in La Quinta, California nearly all day yesterday, so I didn’t have much to do, including no golf.

So, forgive me, I watched hours of the televised confirmation hearing on President Donald Trump’s nomination of William Barr to head the federal Department of Justice and serve as the nation’s attorney general.

Barr, now 68 years old, served as attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, and, for the last 20 years or so, has practiced private sector law.

Based on what I saw, Barr acquitted himself very well before a committee, which, no doubt, will recommend his confirmation to the full Senate, though its membership includes several Democrats who think they have a chance to run for president in 2020.

The last time the committee met was to consider the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice, so yesterday’s proceeding on Barr was far less controversial.

Still, Democrats are preparing to oppose Barr simply because he has been nominated by Trump. In the end, though, Barr he may draw some D votes as the full confirmation process moves toward conclusion. His record of public and private service is stellar enough to surmount at least some of the political positioning.

In a smart public relations move, Barr brought his family to the hearing room, including his grandson, Liam, who won plaudits from Judiciary Committee members for his ability to sit through a long proceeding. At one point, Liam even passed a note to his grandpa saying that he, Barr, was doing a great job before the committee.

For me, one key takeaway from the day’s hearing was Barr’s refusal to indicate that he would yield any of his statutory authority to lower-level officials in his department.

What do I mean by this? Well, Senator Kamala Harris, a likely 2020 presidential candidate, pressed Barr on whether he would accept advice from the Department’s Ethics Office that he should recuse himself from overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe of Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice charges.

Barr said he would be open to Ethics Office advice, but would make his own decision based on the statutory authority of his position. In other words, he would accept recommendations from the Ethics Office, consider that advice, then make his own decision – which is exactly what an Executive Branch official should say and do.

Harris pressed him, asking why he might not follow staff advice.

In a response that struck a chord with me as a former government official, though obviously, not at the level of Barr, he said his answer would be, “if I disagreed with the advice.”

Harris wanted him to defer his authority to career bureaucrats in the Ethics Office. Barr said no. Good for him!

A second issue that caught my attention revolved around potential public release of the Mueller Report once it is complete and has been forwarded to Barr.

Again, vowing Executive Branch discretion and adherence to the law, Barr would not commit to a full and public release of the Mueller report, though he went on record advocating as much transparency as possible.

“The rules say the special counsel will prepare a summary report on any decision to prosecute or decline to prosecute and the report shall be confidential and be treated as any other declination or prosecutive material within the department,” Barr said Tuesday.

To Barr’s credit, he refused to bow to pressure from various Democrats to violate the law. Of course, the Ds wouldn’t put it that way, but no matter, Barr stuck to his guns. Again, good for him!

And, no doubt he won’t care that Senator Dianne Feinstein said today that she will not vote for Barr unless he pledges now to release the entire report. If he said that today, he would be violating the law. [Remember, it was Feinstein who conducted herself in such bad form in the Kavanaugh hearings.]

Why does it appear that I am advocating for Barr? The answer is simple. This time around, Trump has nominated a very credible official to take the nation’s top law enforcement job.

He won’t be bullied by the president, by the media – or importantly for his confirmation hearing – by Congress.

This quote verifies Barr’s independence and credibility.

“I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong—by anybody, whether it be editorial boards, or Congress, or the president.”

Kudos to Barr as he takes on a position that he doesn’t need near the end of his career – and as he deals with a president who often isn’t interested in the rule of law Barr espouses.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I always have loved a good quote, one that conveys more than the specific words used.

One of the best examples was called to my mind by the book, Gatekeepers, author Chris Whipple’s review of the performance and style of various chiefs of staff to American presidents, a particularly important topic in light of Donald Trump’s inability to keep a chief of staff, even a good one like John Kelly.

Whipple recalls this quote from President Ronald Reagan, one uttered in a debate against his Democrat challenger Walter Mondale in a 1984 presidential debate. It was this good-natured ad lib, which still resonates today many years later.

“I will not make age an issue in this campaign,” Reagan intoned. “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Mondale didn’t know what to say, so, smartly, said nothing, though he had to laugh at the line.

In presidential debates, the Reagan quote rivals one uttered by Senator Lloyd Bentsen who was running for vice president against Dan Quayle. In response to one of Quayle’s statements that referenced former President John F. Kennedy, Bentsen, looking pointedly and bemusedly at the younger Quayle, said:

“Mr. Quayle, you are no John Kennedy.”

Again, the quote still resonates today, though, of course Quayle eventually was elected vice president and Bentsen was not.

A third solid quote comes from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She said this:

“The problem with socialism is that you always run out of other people’s money.”

She could have been talking these days about big-government proposals from Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who always want to spent other people’s money to do what they want to do.

Or, consider this over-the-top quote from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in his recent inaugural speech.

“Here’s the truth. Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. There’s plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.”

Of course, he wants your money in his own hands so he can mount even more government programs.

The Wall Street Journal analyzed the quote this way:

“American politics is in part an eternal battle between those who prize freedom and those who demand equality, between the forces of income growth and those of income redistribution, and in 2019 the redistributors are on the march. For the purest distillation of the socialist impulse, look no further than de Blasio’s statement of raw political purpose…”

As I reflect on these quotes, each says more than just the words. And, I am still reflecting on my ability, so far not yet realized, to utter a memorable quote of my own. There is still time.