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.

For those who wonder about the future of golf, let me say this:

The future of the game relates to our commitment to encourage juniors to play the game.

On that basis, the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), one of the best state golf organizations in the country, is way ahead of the curve.

Each year, the OGA organizes a substantial set of junior tournaments under this axiom:

Our core values (Honesty, Integrity, Sportsmanship, Respect, Fun & Friendship, and Stewardship) help develop our members to become tomorrow’s leaders today. Featuring both non-competitive and competitive events year-round, Oregon Junior Golf provides countless golfing opportunities throughout the year for youth players ages 7-18.

I have had the privilege of volunteering in junior tournaments for more than five years now and I always come away from the experience with a renewed sense of pride in the character of golfers I meet.

Most of them are learning to become adults, including with the ability to greet persons older than they are, plus play golf with the right balance of fun and performance.

I often reflect back on my family’s own experience with our son, Eric, who came through the OGA junior ranks more than 20 years ago. For him, it was a great experience, one he translated into an opportunity to play golf in college for Oregon State University.

The course in Salem where we are members, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, also emphasizes junior golf in at least these ways:

• The course is open, under the jurisdiction of the Pro Shop staff, to several high schools in the area (South Salem, Sprague), as well as to a couple colleges.
• A sprightly junior golf program is run by the Pro Shop to help introduce young children to the game. It’s great to see the kids decked out in golf gear, while trying to carry clubs on their backs.
• The club is always open to considering hosting tournaments for juniors run by the Oregon Golf Association. A couple years ago, I recruited a number of Illahe members to serve as “walking scorers” with very young players. To a person, these volunteers said they love to serve again.
• The club is considering sponsoring a program whereby, each year, it would sponsor a promising junior player or two to provide special access to the golf course when, through their families, they are not members.

The future of the game we love will fall to young people. So it makes eminent sense to foster interest by those juniors. And, as the Oregon Golf Association says, the playing experience will help these young people “to become tomorrow’s leaders today.”

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.

NOTE: This is the first of two blogs on the chief of staff issue now percolating in Washington, D.C. Part 1 focuses on Trump, who cannot find an “expert” to take the job because he has no respect for experts. Part 2 will describe credentials for a chief of staff, at least here in Oregon based on my 40 years of experience in state government.

A writer for the Wall Street Journal captured the essence of President Donald Trump’s quest for a new chief of staff. He doesn’t want anyone who is qualified for the job.

“Trump’s inability to recruit, or to even to listen to, top people has hampered everything from Trump’s foreign policy to his own legal defense. His hostility to sound advice, coupled with reliance on his frequently terrible instincts, has produced a kind of synergy (to use a newly infamous word) of incompetence in the White House and beyond: Things go wrong on the world stage, Capitol Hill or with the media.

“Trump never blames himself, instead blaming everyone else, including the people who work for him. Experts — also known as people who know what they’re doing — have had two years to observe this and have understandably become less willing to work for him. Their numbers inside the administration dwindle, lesser lights take over, more mistakes are made; lather, rinse, repeat.”

The writer was someone I have never heard of – Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College and the Harvard Extension School. He is the author of “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.”

His comments about Trump as he searches for a new chief of staff strike me as right on to replace military general John Kelly who sought to bring a sense of discipline to an undisciplined place, the Oval Office under Trump.

“Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,” Nichols avers, “found it ‘challenging’ to work with Trump after ‘coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented ExxonMobil Corporation.’ No surprise there, and Tillerson should have seen it coming.

“As an engineer who had been the steward of a major multi-national company, Tillerson must have found it jarring to take orders from someone who makes most decisions by putting his finger to the wind.”

This chaotic approach to management and governance has undermined the president’s search for a chief a position that requires — or should require — serious managerial ability, broad policy knowledge and sound political judgment.

But even outgoing chief of staff Kelly, a four-star general who shared several of Trump’s basic views and who spent a career commanding thousands, had very limited success in imposing Oval Office discipline.

Trump himself has no discipline and doesn’t want anyone to enforce it.

Accordingly, the list of people who won’t take the chief of staff job that was once among the most sought-after posts in Washington, D.C. is likely as long as the list of those who still want it.

“Trump,” Nichols writes, “has taken a nebulous resentment — that the experts are the source of ordinary Americans’ woes — and etched it into the minds of his supporters. He has succeeded in this largely by writing off his worst failures either as temporary blips or as someone else’s fault.

“Shifting blame might work, at least for a while, in politics. It is a far riskier strategy in front of a prosecutor, and it is positively dangerous during a national security or economic crisis. The president’s voters have cheered as he has smeared capable public servants and denigrated the very idea of competence. The whole country might ultimately pay the price.”

So, in the quest for a new chief of staff, Trump is acting like himself. He, in fact, probably wants to be his own chief of staff because, when he finally appoints someone, he will likely treat that person like he treated John Kelly. No respect.

Kelly tried to impose a sense of discipline in the White House and that, alone, irritated Trump who treated the Oval Office like a carnival barker’s tent. Let anyone in at all times. Let anyone say what he or she wanted to say because, in the end, it wouldn’t matter as Trump headed off for his Twitter account.

If I was Kelly, I would be glad to be leaving. And, if I was asked by Trump to take the position, perish the thought, I would yell an aggressive “no.”

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 wrote a blog on this subject a couple weeks ago, but made a few changes to that first one, so this is another attempt to provide a better summary of my “kingly” propositions.

Every other year, when governors propose a two-year budget for the State of Oregon, I reflect on the process, which often arouses troubling thoughts about what is occurring.

I have these thoughts based on more that 40 years of dealing with such budgets, the first 15 as a state government manager and another 25 as a state lobbyist.

I report those credentials, not to indicate that I am some kind of a budget whiz. I am not. But, over the years, I learned that a state government budget was and is more than just a set of numbers. It was a way for governors to propose a set of policy formulations —formulations that would be under consideration in a legislative session for as many as six months.

So, regarding state budgets – and if I were king for day — I would:

• Require that governors propose a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” for the next biennium within current taxes, NOT new ones.

In this way, all of us would know exactly how much it would cost to operate state government for another two years, not how much it would cost if various folks paid higher taxes.

According to Oregon statutes, the deadline for producing such a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” is December 1. I suppose proposing a budget with new taxes is one way to meet the deadline. But I don’t think such an approach lies within the spirit of the law.

To be fair, a “current services” budget document is prepared separately from the governor. It is done jointly by the Legislative Ways and Means Office and the Executive Budget and Management Division, which is part of the Department of Administrative Services.

I have reviewed this document and it is very well done. I just wish it would be required to come from a governor.

• Require the same governors, if they want to propose increased taxes, to do so in a separate budget document.

In this way, we would know exactly what new, higher taxes are being proposed and what the desired new money would support. As it is, the new taxes, short of being analyzed by a few solid news reporters (one of whom is Jeff Mapes, who left the Oregonian a couple years ago and joined Oregon Public Broadcasting, which means his skills have beefed up the already strong OPB reporting staff) remain buried within budgets.

The effect is that no one really knows the rationale for the new taxes.

• Require the same governors to propose a document to indicate where they propose to cut state agency spending so budgets are not just recommended to be continued intact for two more years.

Budgets for state agencies normally – and, unfortunately — continue from one biennium to the next without much intent to assess whether the spending is achieving desired results. Or, if there is a results measure at all for government programs.

Such a test would improve the quality of what state government. Some programs are so important – important by bi-partisan consensus – that they be continued mostly intact for another two years. But, some could benefit from an intensive look, particularly on whether programs are achieving their desired result.

As I said, I would impose these requirements if I were king for a day. But I’m not, so I suspect the current approach will continue on into the future, which tends to underline another important fact: The legislature should take a hard look at spending if only because such a hard look could support for new revenue for programs like education, higher education, public safety and human services.

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.

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

So, call me a dictator. If you do, I’ll be in good company – I will be like President Trump.

Here goes.

More Words About Trump: In a column in the Washington Post, columnist David Von Drehle nails it when he writes about the president.

“The many modes of mendacity inside the Trump circle would be amusing if the team were not in possession of the nuclear launch codes. Allowing any of these people to give sworn testimony is like handing a fork to a toddler and pointing her toward an electrical outlet. Foreign policy advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, campaign operative Rick Gates, attorney Michael Cohen, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, international go-between Alex van der Zwaan, Russian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik: The list is so long, it feels like an Oscars speech. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is now in double-dutch because prosecutors say he lied when he promised to stop lying.”

Just saying: Look at the line I placed in bold. The image – “handing a fork to a toddler and pointing her to an electrical outlet” – is pretty much right on in talking about a president who is being squeezed by so many lies that impeachment is not a stretch.

A Society of Association Managers: There ought to be a law against such an association.

When I was at a conference near the Portland Airport last week, I walked past another conference in the same hotel. It was for the “Society of Association Managers.”

Think about that for just a moment. First, there are associations, which are groups of individuals interested in the same issues or the same employment categories.

Then, now with this “Society,” we have effectively an association of associations.

Just saying: Perhaps my next job can be to organize a “society of societies!” Good idea, right?

Trump vs. Tillerson: Trump and his former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson exchanged criticisms and insults last week in full public view – in Tillerson’s case, a media interview, and in Trump’s, Twitter.

Interviewed nearly nine months after being fired as Secretary of State, Tillerson attributed his clashes with Trump to differences in style and values, as well as to the president’s frustration with his, Tillerson’s, guidance.

“Part of it was, obviously, we are starkly different in our styles. We did not have a common value system,” Tillerson told CBS News. He also said Trump was undisciplined, didn’t read and didn’t like to delve into the details of issues.

Typically, Trump responded in a Twitter message saying that Tillerson “didn’t have the mental capacity needed. He was dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough. He was lazy as hell. Now it is a whole new ballgame, great spirit at State.”

Just saying: Well, I would say to Trump about his “dumb as a rock comment,” it takes one to know one.

Trump and the Military: What’s one of the differences between an Obama rally for and about the military and a Trump rally for the same? The Washington Post asked this question in a recent story. The answer: The swag.

For the Post, National reporter Greg Jaffe has said the sheer amount of things for sale outside Trump rallies is striking. Some of the items are explicitly pro-Trump, but a lot of the merchandise extends beyond the president and “screams” with brash patriotism and pro-military messages.

So, how does all this reflect on Trump, who has made a series of moves that could – read should — have alienated military veterans and supporters?

Specifically, what do veterans think about Trump’s decision not to visit soldiers’ graves at Veterans’ Day? What do they think about Trump’s criticism of those who followed a mission directive by killing Osama bin Laden, even if they didn’t “find him first,” which was not their job? What do veterans think about Trump’s decision to send troops to the U.S.-Mexican border to deal with the migrant caravan?

And, in the most telling case, what do veterans think of Trump’s criticisms of military hero John McCain?

Just saying: Trump’s deserves huge debit for the ways he has failed to honor the public service of the military and veterans, service that has helped preserve freedom in this country and, often, involved risking life.

I am a veteran, though not as worthy as many of my friends who went to war. Trump’s conduct and comments offend me.

The Best Places to Spend Christmas: This relates to a Conde Nast on-line article the other day, which purported to outline “the best places to spend Christmas.”

Just saying: For me, the choice is easy: The best place to spend Christmas is at home with family and friends.

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.

Beyond the headline, another way to put this is that I have been caught in a series of Catch 22 issues relative to my health insurance coverage.

So, call it an abyss, a series of Catch 22s, or a maze. Any image works.

Remember the movie, “Catch 22” and the book on which it was based, also with Catch 22 in the title? Those involved were caught in a seemingly never-ending loop from which they could never exit. New rules always caught them.

Alas, the movie and the book revolved around important and serious aspects of war where life or death issues were at stake.

My situation was “just” health care, though, I suppose, at the extreme, good health care can be a life or death issue.

Okay, here is what happened to me, not life or death, just frustrating:

• My wife and I are covered under the Public Retirement System (PERS). I and many other PERS health recipients were told recently we had to change insurance companies by the start of 2019 (so-called Medicare Advantage Plans that go along with basic Medicare coverage).
• We had to leave our current carrier, MODA, and had two options for a change. The easiest was to transfer to United.
• We chose that option and felt we would be good, but then I encountered Catch 22 #1. The Clinic where I am served in Salem, Oregon, The Doctors’ Clinic, had decided, for some unknown reason, not to accept United coverage, even though United in the largest health insurer in the country.
• So, on to Catch 22 #2. We had to transfer to the second option, Providence Health Plan, an insurer I knew well because I was the plan’s lobbyist for more than 20 years at the Capitol in Salem.
• We made the change and I designated the person who had been providing my primary health for almost a year, Troy Nies, a physician’s assistant at The Doctors’ Clinic.
• Then, Catch 22 #3. I was told that Troy would not be an acceptable listing as a primary care provider because he did have a medical doctoral degree. He is very qualified and provided great care for me for more than a year, but no matter. No medical degree.
• Then, Catch 22 #4. I was told that I needed to find the name of the doctor to whom Troy reported and list that person on my Providence insurance card. I did. His name is Dr. Jeffrey Brown.
• I passed the name on to Providence, but then Catch 22 #5.
• I was told it might not be possible to list Dr. Brown because he “was not taking new primary care patients.” I knew that, but needed “just” his name as a supervisor to Troy who would continue to provide my primary care.

As I write this, a solution still is pending, to put the best spin on the status.

To be fair, everyone who has tried to help me through this abyss has been courteous and thoughtful. No one has argued with me.

Fine, I say. But still no solution.

It is one thing for a person like me – one who, while not an expert in insurance, has fought health insurance public policy battles for many years – to encounter this abyss. I know just enough about health insurance to be dangerous.

Plus, at the risk of boasting, I am someone who does not sit back and waits for a solution to arrive. I go after it.

By contrast, I think of persons such as my late and dear mother. She would have been lost in this maze.

I hope all of this ends soon for me. I have no need for “the abyss,” “the Catch 22s, or “the maze.” Just solve the problem in a straight-forward, logical 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 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 is easy these days, soon after the mid-term election, to criticize those who won and prepare to take their offices, but one fact remains: We put them there.

If we want better officials to represent us, especially in Congress, as well as the Oregon Legislature, then we should elect better candidates – candidates who will quit campaigning once an election is over and get about the important business of governing.

Too often, we will vote for candidates who agree with us and we with them.

I say it would better if we would vote for candidates who would pledge to do the “public’s business,” not hew to a particular set of propositions with which we might to happen to agree.

Here is one way to describe the dichotomy.

• Many of those who support Democrats believe Republicans only know how to say “no.”
• Many of those who support Republicans believe Democrats only know how to advocate for ever-expanding government.

To some, this gives rise to the idea of a third party candidate, though such a candidate probably would not have the wherewithal, including money, or the swath of support to surmount the two major parties.

That could begin to change, I suspect, if the two parties continue to fail to act in the general public interest and earn debits for only being interested in yelling on the street corner, figuratively speaking, and remaining in power.

Consider health care.

Those on the left often appear to want a single payer system, one that would turn over health care to the government at great cost, a cost no one, including taxpayers could afford.

Those on the right often appear only to be willing to say “no” to anyone’s proposal from the left, even the near left, because it would be likely to include a role for government – and, of course, government already is heavily involved in health care through, at least, Medicare and Medicaid.

Why not use two programs, already in place, as a basis for reforming health care?

One of my partners at the firm from which I retired believes that I am one of those who supports saying “no” to any health care idea.

“No,” again I say. But this time my “no” means I don’t have magic answers about health care policy, but want those from the left and the right to get together and hammer out a compromise, often a dirty word to party partisans.

I say “produce a process that produces a product!”

What this means is that reasonable elected officials from both sides of the aisle – yes, there are some left on both sides – would go into a room with their ideas, discuss them across the table (make it a round one) and strive to find middle ground.

Then, frankly, we would not have the current Affordable Health Care, which was passed in the Obama years without one Republican vote and, despite the title, is not affordable. The then then and possible new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously said she hadn’t even read the bill, but wanted it to pass.

When Republicans took control of the House and the Senate in Congress, they spent more time trying to repeal ObamaCare than working to find a middle ground replacement – and they paid for that negativity at the polls.

A pox on both sides. Their conduct reflects badly on a health care public policy process.

It is only one example that should prompt us, as voters, to support better candidates – candidates who would work to find, as I continually like to call it, the “smart middle.”

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 have been a lot of good quotes lately, especially in relation to the passing of former President George H. W. Bush.

I was impressed with many of the comments, so, as director of this department, I choose to list some of them here, but, at least because I already have written two blogs about Bush 41, this blog won’t be limited to that subject.

• In the Texas memorial service for Bush 41, one of his grandsons, George P. Bush, delivered an eloquent eulogy when he spoke of the grandfather he knew as “Gampy.”

He described how his grandfather loved to spend time with his family, catching bluefish, tossing horseshoes, eating barbecue, tacos and tamales, and motivating his young grandchildren to go to bed each night by offering “the coveted ‘first to sleep award.’ ”

But he said he instilled his credo of “duty, honor, country” in all of the grandchildren.

“He left a simple yet profound legacy to his children, his grandchildren and to this country: service. George Herbert Walker Bush is the most gracious, most decent, most humble man that I will ever know. It’s the honor of a lifetime to share his name.”

Comment: Great comment from another Bush who puts things very well when he said, “it’s the honor of a life to share the Bush name.”

• Or, consider remarks by James A. Baker, now 88, who served Bush 41 as chief of staff in the White House and also served as Secretary of State.

“We’re here today in the house of the Lord to say goodbye to a man of great faith and great integrity, a truly beautiful human being,” Baker said. He was one of Bush’s closest friends, who was with him, holding his hand and massaging his feet, in the moments leading up to his death last Friday.

Baker spoke of Bush’s “noble character, his life of service and the sweet memories he leaves for his friends, his family, and for our grateful nation.”

At the end of his remarks, Baker became choked with emotion as he paraphrased the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, saying, “Our glory, George, was to have had you as our president and as such a friend.”

Comment: Well said, James Baker! You, too, like your best friend, devoted your life to public service.

• From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Given the social and demographic trends of the country, it will soon be impossible to win a presidential election with an ethno-nationalist appeal. But we aren’t there yet. Meanwhile, Trump commits political vampirism — sucking the last remaining life from a dying coalition.”

Comment: Gerson uses excellent words when he says Trump is committing “political vampirism.” If you are looking for a contrast to Bush 41, this is a huge one.

• From Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, describes, at the time of the passing of George H.W. Bush, the duplicity of the media which criticized Bush deeply and personally, then, now, has lauded his performance and style. Most of the Bush values, Henninger writes, can be found on any list of what are called—or used to be called—virtues. “It is telling that these same simple virtues are now being praised by a media that has done so much in the past 30 years to undermine them.”

Comment: Henninger, a member of the Fourth Estate himself, scores points for me when he skewers the duplicity of the media. For an excellent, though imperfect, president like Bush 41, the media goes after him because he, Bush 41, was not adept at some of the communication arts of being president. They failed to assess anything near the virtue of his even-handed leadership at a time of potential peril for this country, the end of the Cold War.

What we need in the Office of the President is someone who will conduct himself with an appropriate sense of humility and decorum. Bush 41 had it.

• I love the quote from former Senator Alan Simpson, who at the national service for Bush 41, said this: “He never hated anyone. He knew what his mother and my mother always knew: Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.”

Think of the excellent use of a word “corrodes. It sort of flows off the tongue, though its meaning is very specific and jarring, as indicated by this dictionary definition:  “To eat or wear away gradually as if by gnawing, especially by chemical action; to impair; deteriorate.”

Hatred does just that – in political life and in real life.  Too much to hope, I guess, that the current occupant of the Oval Office, gets 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 – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I wrote a blog a couple days ago reflecting on the life and times of the late George H. W. Bush as he was being eulogized across the country.

Here a few more random reflections, including several great quotes that will help us remember this excellent of presidents.

• George W. Bush, the son of Bush 41, gave an emotional eulogy that could only be describe as an ode to a father he loved. He broke down once at the end of his statement.

“The best father a son or daughter could have,” Bush 43 said. “And in our grief, let us smile, knowing that dad is hugging Robin and holding mom’s hand again.”

“In victory, he shared credit. When he lost, he shouldered the blame. He accepted that failure is a part of living a full life, but taught us never to be defined by failure.”

• Arizona Senator John McCain’s state funeral was notable in part for the overt rebukes of President Donald Trump, with calls for bi-partisanship and civility. With Trump in attendance at the official service for Bush 41, those calls for bi-partisanship and civility continued, but were a bit muted.

Bush 43 biographer Jon Meacham said, “His life code, as he said, was: Tell the truth, don’t blame people, be strong, do your best, try hard, forgive, stay the course. And that was and is the most American of creeds.”

• I love a couple of the quotes from former Senator Alan Simpson who hales from Wyoming.

“He never hated anyone. He knew what his mother and my mother always knew: Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.”

What a great line! But not just a line – it speaks volumes about the conduct of public officials, but also about the conduct of all us in our every day lives.

• Another quote from Simpson: “Those who travel the high road of humility in Washington, D.C. are never troubled by traffic.”
• Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who served at the same time as Bush 41, came south to offer this trenchant comment.

“When George Bush was president … every single head of government in the world knew that they were dealing with a gentleman, a genuine leader—one who was distinguished, resolute and brave.”

• Wall Street Journal editorial writers used the headline, “A Show of Class” to describe the national memorial service.

“Thursday’s funeral service for George H.W. Bush was full of eloquence, humor and grace, reflecting the man and the family. The media coverage unfortunately chose too often to lament that it reflected some past era that can’t be reclaimed, as if the future isn’t in our own hands.

“But the respect you get is usually the respect you earn, and the Bush family put on a public rite of national mourning that reflected well on the character of their father and the entire Bush clan, and gave the country a moment of shared respect it desperately needs.

“The eulogies were all well struck, elaborating on the many sides of George H.W. Bush: The war heroism and ambition from biographer Jon Meacham, the personal diplomacy from Brian Mulroney, friendship and wit from Alan Simpson, and the personal reflections of the presidential son. The Bushes are sometimes derided, on the left and right as part of a failed establishment, but on Wednesday they set an example for Americans to follow.”

It’s worth remembering this excellent of presidents. His life commitment was based on service and love of family. Both traits emerged very effectively in a “Show of Class” as we laid to rest in his home in Texas.

There is no question but that we need more public-spirited citizens like Bush 41.

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 is because I just completed an endurance test – a four-day rules of golf seminar in Portland sponsored jointly by the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the PGA of America.

The seminar was two things:

• A solid look at new golf rules, which are scheduled to be effective as of January 1, 2019 – and, based on work done jointly by the USGA and the R & A in Europe, the number of rules has been reduced and the style of writing has been updated.
• A complicated – perhaps too complicated — look at golf rules, which, if you allow yourself to do so, can twist your brain in circles.

Another point must be added quickly. It is that golf is played on a large tract of land in the out-of-doors, so the rules are bound to be more complicated than what exists for indoor sports such as basketball or football, plus many others.

After enduring the four days, here is a summary of my wishes:

1. I wish golf rule writers would land on either “dropping” a ball or “placing” a ball. As it is, the use of the two steps can create a lot of confusion.
2. In the same way, I wish golf writers would land on two penalties – a two-stroke penalty or a disqualification penalty. As it is, there are three – one stroke, two strokes and DQ, the latter of which is related to what could be labeled a “serious breach” – which often means a code of conduct violation. If the rule writers could settle on one stroke or two, not both, those who have to interpret rules on a golf course would have a simpler process.
3. And, if I were a golf rules writer, I would revise the new policy about bunkers. Most of the time, those whose play out of a bunker are prohibited from touching the sand before a shot. Now, with the new rules, three strange actions are now possible – (a) players are allowed to lean on a club in a bunker before hitting a shot if that would help them “stay balanced,” (b) players are allowed to leave extra clubs or even their golf bags in the bunker while they play, and (c) players are allowed expressly to pound their club in the sand “in frustration or anger” after hitting a bad shot in the bunker, even that shot ends up staying in the bunker.

Stupid!

I actually find it hard to believe that the USGA and PGA have enshrined “frustration and anger” in the new rules. In Oregon, in the tournaments where I help to officiate, such behavior would prompt a serious code of conduct violation.

On the plus side when it comes to rules for bunkers, players who want to do so can now take a ball out of a bunker for a penalty of two strokes and play from that new area.

I also have a major suggestion going through the seminar. I would add a section on one of the days that could be entitled, “The Top 10 Rules Situations You Will Encounter on the Golf Course.”

That way, those into the golf rules business would be able to focus on what’s likely to occur, not the minutia of many of the individual rules. Just a thought.

Finally, I would give the USGA and the PGA credit for working together to provide information rules seminars. The two organizations could proceed separately; they have agreed to cooperate, which is good for golf.

Overall, the new rules effective in 2019 are not a wholesale change. Many of the old rules remain in place. But what the USGA and R & A have done is a step in the right direction if one goal is to encourage more play and more golfers to play.

Still, strikes me that there is more to be done on those scores.

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.

If you want to consider a stark contrast, just look at two presidents – former president George H.W. Bush and the current one, Donald Trump.

I suggest this on the “occasion” of the passing of President, Bush 41 as he was called.

Bush, whatever you think of his record, was a solid citizen who loved his family and his country.

Trump, whatever you think of his record, appears only to love himself, more than anything else, including his family and his country.

For my part, I thought Bush 41 came to the presidency with one of the most impressive records of anyone to ascend to the country’s highest political office.

He served as ambassador to the United Nations, chair of the Republican National Committee, envoy to China and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then, he became vice president under Ronald Reagan, a position which set him up to run for president. He made it, but only for one term when he was ousted by Bill Clinton.

He may have lost because he was not particularly adept at the communication arts of being president.

The Clinton win appeared to be tough for Bush, not surprisingly because it’s never pleasant to lose, but he rebounded and, incredibly, even with Clinton after the Democrats’ two terms, worked successfully on a variety of philanthropic campaigns, including helping Louisiana residents cope with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

When he left the White House for the final time as president, he followed through on a tradition, which is he wrote a letter to his successor and left it on the Oval Office desk. Except, he did with humility and personal flair. Here is what it said:

Dear Bill,

When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.

Good Luck — George

As he so often does, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, who worked for Bush 43, wrote well about the elder Bush’s passing.

“Being one of the youngest Navy pilots in World War II, and blessed with longevity, George H.W. Bush was among the last of his cohort (a cohort of young Americans sharing a massive, overwhelming experience of economic depression or war) to leave us. As intelligence chief, diplomat and president, he brought to his calling a set of values that might be called patrician. He was less ‘New Frontier’ and more old-school. He rose in government on the impulse of service. He lived by high standards of decency, fair play, humility, love of family and love of country. He was relentlessly moderate in both temperament and political instinct.

“This type of ‘establishment’ code is easier to lampoon than replace. So much of what a graceless age dismisses as repression is actually politeness, compassion and dignity.”

Gerson adds that Bush’s moral sensibilities turned out to be exactly what was needed at a decisive historical moment, the collapse of the Soviet Union under the weight of its economic and moral failure. What was needed from the United States, Gerson wrote, “was patience, wisdom, steady purpose and the generosity of true power. In presiding over the breaking of nations, an excess of vision or ambition might have been dangerously disruptive. Crowing would have led to bitterness and unpredictable anger. And Bush was incapable of crowing.

“Bush’s life provides assurance that sometimes things go gloriously right. Sometimes Americans vote for a decent and honest leader. Sometimes a president finds his calling and his moment. Sometimes a good man meets a good end. And still. It is a sad and solemn task to dig the graves of giants.”

Remember, the line from Saturday Night Live – “Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

While a laugh line, the word “prudent” summed up Bush 41 in two syllables.

He wasn’t known for excitement or inspiration. His prudence, however, was no joke.

Imagine saying such words as prudent and service-oriented about Donald Trump? No.

Instead, he exudes no commitment to public service or, in fact, to family. He lacks prudence. He appears to parade around the White House, when he is not at his Mara Logo resort in Florida, as if he owns the place rather that being “just” its current occupant.

Trump is not capable of leading the country effectively and fairly in the face of either national or international incidents, as was the case with Bush 41 in both spheres.

As we remember Bush 41, even as his casket goes on Air Force One today to Texas for final burial, his presidency continues to receive widespread plaudits regardless of political party. Was he or it perfect? No. No one could be.

But he led with strength, integrity, compassion and humility — characteristics that define a truly great man and effective leader.

Too bad we don’t have someone with similar high qualities in the White House at the moment.