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 recently wrote a blog about great quotes, but missed one that stands out.

It is this:

“There is no end to the good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

It was a phrase uttered by General Colin Powell at about the time he decided not to run for president as he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Civility would produce the kind of “you don’t care who gets the credit” attitude typical of Powell. He came across as a public official who wasn’t interested in credit, even though he did a lot of good work over his years in the military.

In that way, he stands as a huge contrast to the current occupant of the White House, a man who wants to get credit for everything, no matter whether he deserves it or not. To Donald Trump, credit is what matters, not the act of doing good.

Powell’s quote also mimics the style of a governor for whom I worked many years ago in Oregon – the late Victor Atiyeh. He also was not interested in taking or getting credit; he wanted, first and foremost, to do a good job for all Oregonians.

As the years have missed since Atiyeh’s eight years in the Governor’s Office, his reputation has done nothing but gone up. That is the case for many Republicans who are members of his party, as well as for many Democrats who didn’t share party labels, but appreciated his down-to-earth, open style.

You could actually talk to this governor when you saw him walking down of the Capitol, which he loved.

Nowhere was this “do good work style” more evident that in the serious leadership Atiyeh displayed in opposing the invasion of the Rajneesh cult in Eastern Oregon. Recent media coverage of that episode in the 1980s shed at least a little light on the quiet, resourceful leadership Atiyeh displayed to control a vicious, criminal-minded cult.

It was my pleasure to serve in the Atiyeh Administration and to get to know first-hand this great Oregonian for whom getting credit was not the highest goal. Sharing credit, as in the case of General Powell, was the motivation.

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.

The difference noted in the headline is one I followed for a number of years as a partner in a lobbying and public relations business in Oregon (though we also had offices in Washington, D.C.)

It is this:

A strategic focus is looking at the big picture, then designing tactics to fit that focus.

Too often, I saw lobbyists focus on routine tactics as a way to achieve desired ends. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn’t.

But a focus on strategy would have been better.

Here is the dictionary definition of the two words:

• Strategy: A plan, method or series of maneuvers for obtaining a specific goal or result.
• Tactics: Any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

There is at least a subtle difference between the two, but one I think is important. It is that strategy is the bigger word, one that doesn’t just focus on activities, but that emphasizes goals and aspirations. It was what motivated us to call our firm, CFM Strategic Communications (CFM), when the time came several years ago to recognize that one of our partners was going to retire and we needed a new name.

An example or two from my role as a lobbyist may help to underline the difference between strategies and tactics.

1. Deepening the Columbia River Channel on behalf of the Port of Portland (a CFM client)

Our strategy here rested on the theory – not to mention the reality – that the Port of Portland served the entire region, not just Portland. Our work also rested on conveying a perception – a true one, by the way – that deepening the channel would serve as an economic benefit for the entire region as deeper-draft ships could ply their way up and down the Columbia River.

Our tactics were designed to cement that strategic focus in the minds of legislators who eventually would have to vote to make the channel deepening money available over multiple biennia. In one case, we produced a list showing how businesses in all of Oregon’s 36 counties used the Port of Portland and would benefit from increasing ship traffic – and we often called the Port of Portland, the Port of Oregon, if not the Port of the Region.

We also produced statistics that showed the potential economic benefit for the region beyond Oregon.

We started with a strategy, aiming at the big picture, then built the individual, daily tactics to serve that strategy. It was not just about the appropriation; it was conveying a big-picture rationale for the appropriation. The result was that legislators approved the allocation.

2. Supporting continued investments in Medicaid for low income Oregonians on behalf of Providence Health and Services (CFM’s long-standing client)

Here, we set out to describe Medicaid, the joint federal-state program, as a key feature of Oregon’s safety net for low-income Oregonians, many of them single mothers with young children.

To design tactics to serve the strategy, we developed a variety of communications materials to convey the reality that physicians and other medical personnel supported continued Medicaid investments. We also designed materials to make the funding case on behalf of actual patients who agreed to allow us to use photos and to tell their personal stories.

It was not just – appropriate the money. It was developing a strategic rationale for the appropriation. Again, the tactics served the strategy, not the reverse. And the result was success – the appropriation was approved.

All of this reminds me of the times when I have been asked to appear before a Willamette University graduate class where I often described the differences between strategy and tactics. My impression was that the class members accepted the difference.

I hope they did and that the differences between the two will help them succeed in their chosen fields, just as the differences have helped me succeed in mine over the years.

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.

“Three Chears for Internships” was a headline for a piece that ran last week in the Wall Street Journal and, based on my own experience, I could not agree more.

I have watched as my daughter and her husband turned internships into full-time jobs. Without the internships, it is likely they would not have landed the employment, at least not as early as they did.

Here’s how the Wall Street Journal conveyed the point in its headline:

Three Cheers for Internships

Even without pay, they offer experience far more valuable than most classes.

The writer, Andy Kessler, put it this way:

“It’s that time of year. Students hoping to land summer internships are flooding inboxes with their résumés. Managers should hire as many as possible. It’s good for the company but even better for the student—and for society. Pay them? Don’t pay them? It doesn’t matter. Just let them in the door.

“In my junior year of college, I got an internship at Hewlett-Packard. It was way across the country in Cupertino, Calif., where Apple’s spaceship headquarters is today. To save money, since I had little, I got an apartment with no furniture, slept on the floor, used a shopping cart for a dresser, and borrowed a friend’s bike to get to work.

“Still, I can’t think of anything better for college students than plopping them in the middle of some exciting enterprise. It almost doesn’t matter what the company does; good interns absorb it all. I call it learning by osmosis. Lessons about your industry, trends, pricing and profits can’t help but work their way into the pores and brains of hungry students bored from endless reading assignments and seminars.

“Put them at the center of whatever a company does—not in the copy room. I can almost guarantee that they’ll be a net positive. The payback usually comes in the form of a single good idea, one productive change that fresh eyes will see while others, especially those sucking up for a promotion, won’t.”

For my daughter, her internship was arranged by Seattle Pacific University (SPU) at a new children’s clothing company organized by Anne Geddes, the famous photographer of babies. It was a great place for my daughter to get her start in the business.

Plus, she loved textile design, which was her major at SPU.

That first job led directly to another one as a clothing designer for Tommy Bahama, which was headquartered in Seattle.

Great for my daughter, but also great for me because I got a bunch of Tommy Bahama clothing, which was rejected for sale because of the smallest reasons, none visible to my naked eye.

From SPU, which my son-in-law also attended, he competed and got an internship at Microsoft, also headquartered in Seattle. It was a huge achievement because all of the other interns were from Ivy League schools back east.

My son-in-law has proved his worth. His internship led directly to employment and today he ranks as the CFO of Microsoft’s entertainment division, which includes X-Box.

To be sure, internships are not a magic answer to anything. But they provide a basis for a college student to obtain some experience that, as they apply themselves, will give them a leg up when they compete for full-time, post-internship jobs.

So, I say to colleges and universities – arrange all the internships possible. And I say to businesses – hire interns to give them experience, which can be gained in no other 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.

This department, remember, is one I run with full and complete authority. This time, rather than just include quotes of the moment that may not leave much of a lasting impression, I list quotes that either have or will last the test of time.

The first, from General Colin Powell, is one I have referenced before and it speaks volumes about our national government, which has descended to depths Powell would not recognize today.

So, here goes with “quotes worth remembering for a long time.” 

1.  From General Colin Powell as he declined to run for president in 1996

It is one of my favorite quotes of all time because, in only a few words, a general who had earned the right to comment made it very clear that he would not run for president in 1996 – and he also commented on the sad state of government in the late 1990s.

“I bemoan the loss of civility in politics,” Powell said, as one reason why he would enter the race.

I didn’t blame him then and I can only imagine what he thinks today as our political life has descended to new depths due, in large part, to the “administration” of Donald Trump if the word “administration” is one that could be applied to the tweet-by-the-moment president.

2.  On why it is tougher to convict public officials of ethics violations , including in the matters involving former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, escaped conviction on corruption charges this year thanks in large part to “the Supreme Court’s 2016 McDonnell standard demanding clear evidence of a specific quid-pro-quo.”

Menendez escaped prosecution and, in the end, so did Kitzhaber as the Court issued a ruling in a case involving Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell who was in prison for misdeeds while in office, but who was released based on the new standard.

In some ways, it’s hard to argue with the standard, not to mention that it was promulgated by the highest court in the land. But it does make it harder to gain convictions for alleged public office corruption.

3.  Hillary Clinton hurt herself deeply when she used the phrase “basket of deplorables” in the race against Donald Trump

“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. … The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic … (Trump) tweets and re-tweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

No doubt most of those in the “basket” voted for Trump.

Now for a quote closer to home.

4.  Prescient words from Oregon government administrator Fred Miller in his role as chief operating officer

I had the privilege of working with and for Fred as, with distinction, he served several governors in Oregon.

Off to the side, we often discussed big-picture issues involving government and one of his admonitions to me, one I remember very well to this day, was this:

“The easiest thing to do about government, including the legislature, is to be cynical about it. Don’t be.”

Fred’s point was that, with all its warts and distractions, representative government in Oregon is better than all the other alternatives.

His quote was one I remember almost every day as I went on to work as a state lobbyist for 25 years after my “training” with Fred. I tried to avoid being cynical about the legislature.  Instead, I tried to give those I was lobbying the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to do what they thought best, even if their view didn’t agree with me or my clients.

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 was a headline the other day: “New Netflix documentary revisits the still-shocking story of the Rajneeshees in Oregon.”

With that headline – not to mention a number of other stories — memories of the strange episode in Oregon’s history, as well my role in it in the 1980s, came flooding back to me. Not just my role, but the role of the Administration of Governor Victor Atiyeh, for whom I worked and which faced incredibly difficult challenges from a rogue band of international cult followers.

When you reach the end of this blog, you’ll see how something so threatening for Oregon turned into something incredibly positive.

Oregonian newspaper reporter Kristi Turnquist wrote this about the upcoming Netflix documentary:

“Oregonians who were here when the amazing-but-true story of what happened when Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh came to Wasco County can still remember the shocking twists, turns and revelations about what the Rajneeshees and their leaders were up to.

“Those who weren’t here then can revisit this still-shocking saga in ‘Wild Wild Country,’ a new, six-part documentary series that begins streaming on Netflix on Friday, March 16.

“’Wild Wild Country’ goes back to the early 1980s, when a philosophy professor-turned guru from India called Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his followers bought land in Oregon’s Wasco County. Rajneesh’s chief of staff, Ma Anand Sheela, was the organizer, and thousands of crimson-clad followers showed up to live and work on the commune.

“The headlines flowed like water from Rajneesh’s compound, where the Bhagwan was amassing a collection of Rolls-Royces, and Sheela was clashing with Oregon land-use officials and planning criminal schemes, including poisoning salad bars at restaurants in The Dalles.”

At the time, Governor Atiyeh, even with his long and credible record in state government, could not believe what was happening to “his state.” Neither could I.

It’s one thing for out-of-towners to camp in the Eastern Oregon wilderness. It’s another for thousands of them to flood into a state from around the world, intending to stay seemingly forever, taxing local resources, and planning destructive criminal enterprises while riding around in Rolls Royces.

As I worked with the governor’s chief of staff, Gerry Thompson, and others in the office, we tried to keep track of developments in Wasco County so we would know how best to respond, as well as help local officials respond.

We also had another huge benefit – Governor Atiyeh’s calmness and seasoned demeanor that helped to prevent a full-out battle with what clearly was a group of intruders with no understanding of the state they were invading.

It was the Governor who was able to bring all federal and state agencies together to deal with the Rajneesh threat. His steadfast posture also conveyed to Ma Anand Sheela (the Rejneesh leader named above) that she would not get what she wanted from the Atiyeh Administration, nor from the State Oregon.

The Governor did not get much credit for dealing with the Rajneesh emergency, but that was his style – credit wasn’t the issue; handling the problem with skill and dispatch was the priority. Without the Governor’s steady hand, the threat would have escalated far more broadly.

I wish various recent documentaries on the Rajneesh episode in Oregon would have included summaries of what the Atiyeh Administration did to control the problem. The Administration deserves far more credit than it is getting. And, in some cases, the documentaries have painted a far-too-positive picture of the invaders, suggesting that the episode was more fun than threatening.

Another articular piece of good news was that the governor’s chief of staff, Gerry Thompson, followed the governor’s lead by demonstrating a cool, but firm, hand in aligning all of the state’s resources to stop damage from the Rejneeshees. For one thing, she, with the State Police, had cultivated a source within the Rajneesh camp who alerted us privately to at least some of what was to come, including the crime of poisoning salad bars in The Dalles.

I remember standing in my Salem home late one evening on the phone with Gerry and her source as we endeavored to learn more about the Rajneesh plans, including the prospect of criminal action by commune leaders.

Another tactic employed by Rajneesh leaders was to go around the country and recruit homeless persons to come to Oregon to become part of the commune. Those persons, most of whom came to Oregon by bus, landed first in Portland where they taxed a variety of local charitable resources.

Many of the homeless persons didn’t make it to Wasco County. So, at one point, I was dispatched to Portland to help local charitable organizations respond to the influx of homeless persons who needed services. There were so many of them that we eventually decided to buy bus tickets to get the homeless persons back “home” where, at least, the demand for services could be spread out around a number of cities.

This story doesn’t end with just the fact that a strange and threatening commune invaded Oregon, though the foreboding reality episode has receded over the years.

Incredibly, the site of the former Rajneesh invasion has become a Young Life camp where the worth of knowing Jesus has been described literally to hundreds of young people in the last few years.

A fitting end to the Rajneesh story, I say!

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 was struck the other day by a reaction from a friend of mine in response to a general conversation, based on media stories, of ethical questions surrounding the conduct of former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber.

This friend shrugged his shoulders and said something along this line – “well, they’re all crooked and on the take.”

By “they,” he meant all persons who hold public office.

Given headlines around the country, I guess it is understandable for this friend to take a jaundiced view and assume everyone is on the take. But, of course, that is not the case.

To use an old image, there may rotten apples in the barrel, but not every one is rotten. The point is that everyone in public office is not crooked.

A recent study by the PEW Research Center found that “a major factor in the public’s negative attitudes about the federal government is its deep skepticism of elected officials.

“Asked to name the biggest problem with government today, many citizens cite Congress, politics or a sense of corruption or undue outside influence. At the same time, large majorities of the public view elected officials as out of touch, self-interested, dishonest and selfish.”

In the PEW study, only 19 per cent of respondents say elected officials in Washington try hard to stay in touch with voters back home; 77 per cent say elected officials lose touch with the people quickly.

The study goes on to say that a majority of the public doubts the commitment of elected officials to put the country’s interests ahead of their own. Roughly three-quarters say elected officials put their own interests ahead of the country’s interests, while just 22 per cent say elected officials put the interests of the country first.

The PEW study underscores my friend’s skepticism, if not cynicism, about government.

One of the problems is that ethical lapses, or “on-the-take” failures, always get more publicity than what is accorded to officials who function within the bounds of ethics and honesty.

As a lobbyist for more than 25 years, I have seen both kinds of elected officials – those who put their own interests first and those who stand for the public interest. Frankly, there have been more of the latter than the former.

That’s why I support what one of my bosses told me back in my days in Oregon state government. He said, “the easiest thing to do is to be cynical about government.” Instead, he advocated a realistic approach to government, believing that our representative form, with all of its frailties, is better than whatever is in second place.

So, my goal – as well as my advice – is to continue to be skeptical about government, not cynical.

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.

Like many of you, I grew up holding newspapers in my hands – yes, the ink rubbed off – and I loved doing it.

So much so that I followed one of my dreams, which was to become a newspaper reporter.

When newspapers no longer exist, it will be a sad day for me because, while I do read some newspapers on-line, I also love having newsprint in my hands. My kids are different; they rarely have newspapers at their fingertips. So much for the differences in generations.

National Public Radio posted this part of a blog the other day:

“In a way, Jim Romenesko has become a newspaper obituary writer — except he doesn’t write obituaries of people, he chronicles the demise of American newspapers.

For National Public Radio, “it’s Romenesko’s job to cull through the news of the media industry and post stories of interest. Because of the acceleration of dead and dying dailies in the country, Romenesko’s blog has turned into a scrolling roll call of bad news. He links to story after story describing the shifting journalistic landscape.

“For many readers who love newspapers, it’s a sad state of affairs. If you clicked on Romenesko — as the blog is popularly known — over the past few days, here is essentially what you saw: “Washington Post profit falls 77 per cent in fourth quarter,” “Will Rupert Murdoch end up owning the New York Times and Los Angeles Times?” “Hearst says it will sell or close the San Francisco Chronicle if cuts aren’t made in a hurry,” “Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News owner files for bankruptcy protection.”

“And that’s only a few of the entries.

“Sprinkled among the list of sick-and-shut-in big-city newspapers were notices of others that are ailing and failing, such as the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News, which published its last issue Friday. And an announcement that the American Society of Newspaper Editors has canceled its 2009 convention in April because of stress within the industry. And a slew of raging debates about whether newspapers can be saved, where news will come from in the future and how it will be delivered.”

Well, if you are a newspaper lover and looking for some good news, there was just a bit in a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal. Several letters to the editor were written by young people to offer praise and perspective on a piece by Barton Swaim, which was entitled, “In Praise of the News On Paper.”

One letter said this: “In the 24-hour news cycle, even the reputable on-line outlets have to constantly create new stories and headlines, which leads directly to the always reading, never-informed cycle Mr. Swaim describes. A hard paper is the distilling of that chaos in which the facts as they are, and sometimes informed opinions about those facts, can be digested in a sitting. I suspect consuming news this way also limits the propensity toward outrage and contention that following constantly “breaking news” online seems to engender. That is a thinking individual’s way to consume news, rather than a reactionary’s method. Whether ‘the news on paper’ will persevere, depends entirely on whether we thinking individuals do so.”

This was from Vince Skolny from Los Angeles.

Or, this from another writer, Melissa Lee from Sugar Land, Texas:

“I’m a high-school student. Flipping through each page of the paper exposes me to articles on a variety of topics. In contrast, scrolling through digital news triggers an onslaught of algorithms catered to personal preferences. Follow the trails of “You may also like” and soon all the information on the webpage aligns with one’s individual views.

“A broad understanding of current affairs is best gained from reading the news in print and will help prevent the “echo chamber” and “confirmation bias” that afflict our society.”

It’s worth reading these letters and appreciating the points they make, which is that it is better to be educated by reading words on paper than it is to rely solely on the Internet.

Now, of course the Internet is not bad. It provides a wider scope of information every day than I would otherwise have in my minds, but it also is important to keep in mind the advice in the last letter above – “scrolling through digital news triggers an onslaught of algorithms catered to personal preferences.”

That’s not real news.

So, as newspaper continue to die in this country, use the Internet, but keep it as one source of information and perspective, not the only source.

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.

Mick Mulvaney, who holds two administrative positions in the Trump Administration, made a confession the other day – at least I call it a “confession” — that offends normal sensibilities.

He told James Hohmann, a Washington Post writer who produces the Daily 202 column, that when he, Mulvaney, was in Congress, he met only with lobbyists who had given him money. Hohmann called it a verification of the “corrosive influence of money in politics.”

Here is the way it was reported in Daily 202:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney said. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

Mulvaney, who represented South Carolina in the House from 2011 until President Trump appointed him director of the Office of Management and Budget in 2017, told about 1,300 banking industry executives and lobbyists that they should push lawmakers hard to pursue their “shared agenda.”

He told the crowd that trying to sway legislators is one of the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy,” though his own comments about requiring money for any meeting tended to obscure that view.

To be clear, Hohmann wrote that not all members of Congress operate in this tawdry way.

“Many offices take pride in meeting with people no matter how much money they have given or might in the future.” “But Mulvaney’s comment,” Hohmann added, “appears emblematic of a mentality that pervades Trump’s orbit.”

This account resonated with me because, as the preamble to this blog notes, I was a lobbyist in Oregon for more than 25 years – actually about 40 if you count my time as a state government manager when I handled relations with the legislature.

I never – I say never – found a case where I knew a legislator would decide whether to meet with me based on how much money my clients provided to his or her race.

For us – meaning myself, state lobby colleagues in my firm, and our firm’s clients – giving money to legislative or statewide office candidates was a very serious matter, one we handled carefully to avoid any notion that we wanted to pay for a result. We simply wanted to invest in the candidacies of those who would be thoughtful in how they carried out their office.

We didn’t keep voting records. We kept relationship records.

If the candidate in question had been in office before, the question for us was whether we had access to the office holder and whether he or she would “consider” viewpoints we expressed on behalf of clients. Note, the objective was consideration. If the candidate had not been in office before, we discussed our idea that consideration mattered.

It was NOT whether the candidate had pledged or would pledge his or her vote in any particular way.

This may sound unrealistic, especially if you harbor negative views of the way lobbyists operate. To use an old saw, are there rotten lobbyists who spoil the barrel of lobbyists? Of course, the answer is yes.

But, my experience is that most lobbyists are trying to do the right thing by representing their clients and working to make sure client viewpoints are considered before action is taken on specific pieces of state legislation.

So, debits to Mulvaney and kudos to office holders who operate in an ethical and honest manner, regardless of the effect of “money in politics.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

A piece by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel caught my attention this week as she proposed a list of better questions for the media to ask James Comey.

She said Comey “is tripping the media light fantastic” as he travels the country to promote his new book, which, it has been said, is short on real news. So, she suggested some harder-hitting questions for the former FBI director.

I won’t repeat those here, but for some reason, the peg for Strassel’s column reminded me of a blog I wrote a year or so ago. It was one that proposed a list of improved questions for legislators in Oregon to ask as they considered bills under consideration at the Capitol.

The four questions listed below are ones frequently ignored as legislators consider the thousands of bills that are introduced every session in Salem.

While not magic answers, asking and answering these questions would produce better government.

So, here they are:

What is the specific problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?

This question is seldom raised or even discussed. Yet, it should be. Too often, the introduction of a bill is done for just that reason and none other – getting it printed. Legislators then tell constituents they have acted on their behalf. Action, in this case, is just getting a bill printed and that process alone costs thousands of dollars of staff time.

Is there an appropriate role for government to play?  

This is an even more basic question that tests another often-ignored issue: Whether there is the role of government? Government should not insert itself into every issue. So, the best answer to this question could be no. It rarely is.

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

Return on investment often is a foreign concept in the halls of the legislature. But the concept should be considered in the sense of subjecting government programs – old ones and new ones – to a key test: What results do they achieve? If they don’t produce results, they should be discontinued.

How will government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state or the country depends to fund government?  

This, too, is seldom discussed, at least at the initiative of legislators. Lobbyists for some consumer groups raise the question. So do lobbyists for business. But both often falls on deaf ears. Yet, legislators rely on taxpayers to help keep government afloat.

If legislators are committed to moving on a bill, they should at least consider if there would a better way to act than originally proposed.

If elected officials would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d see better results in Salem.

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 reflected on the question in the headline for more than a year since Donald Trump took office as president of the United States.

His conduct defies explanation.

Almost everything he does is accompanied by a tweet, which usually criticizes someone, often in harsh words. The media, of course, pays attention to tweets because at least the content feeds the controversy important for ratings and subscriptions.

A recent Daily 202 e-mail from the Washington Post even posited that Trump views himself as his own spokesman even as he has failed to appoint a communications assistant who would work in concert with his press secretary.

No wonder.

If Trump were to make such an appointment, it would be the fifth in only a year.  Tough to speak for Trump.

Here is the way the Daily 202 put it:

“Hope Hicks announced her departure as White House communications director in February, but President Trump has yet to name a replacement. Instead, he continues to do the job himself.

“He drafts talking points. He organizes surrogates. He oversees rapid response. He maintains relationships with key media figures over dinners, rounds of golf and long phone calls. And, of course, he manages his own social media presence.

“Since the 2016 election, five people have now done six stints as Trump’s communications director. One reason it’s an impossible job is that the former reality television star who occupies the Oval Office will always consider himself his own best spokesman.”

Is Trump his own best spokesman? I think not.

As he watches cable TV news, he is not able to focus on promoting his Administration’s agenda if, in fact, it has one. As an illustration of that inability, Trump has spent the last few days watching cable news shows, then castigating former FBI Director James Comey who is out promoting his new book.

If you were president with an agenda, why not let Comey ridicule himself by his shameless promotion and then focus on major issues of the day, such as the United States relationship with Russia, a potential trade war with China and the upcoming meeting with South Korea leader Kim Jong-on?

Various columnists continue to reflect on the question, Who is Donald Trump. Here is a selection of their comments.

From author Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal: “I disapprove of the bragging tweets, the touchiness, the crude put-downs of anyone who disagrees with him (“Little Marco, ” “insecure Oprah, ” “Sloppy Steve, ” and the rest), the unrestrained vulgarity. America has had ignorant, corrupt, vain, lazy presidents before, but in Donald Trump we have the first president who is a genuine boor.”

“The president’s self-generated governing crisis is disturbing. But when paired with authoritarian envy, it is pathetic. An exercise in autocratic jock-sniffing. Other would-be strongmen have turned to Karl Marx for inspiration; for Trump, it is more like the Marx Brothers. Absurdly stereotyped characters — Anthony Scaramucci, Sebastian Gorka, Stephen K. Bannon — pop randomly in and out of well-appointed rooms, while the main character feeds chaos all around him. It is the Duck Soup dictatorship. “

From a Washington Post reporter who does not often write opinion pieces: “As yet another chief of staff twists in the wind, the president makes clear two essential points about how he governs:

“1) Always double down on your position. Through the most trying moments of the past two years, Trump has regularly argued in favor of men on his side who’ve been accused of bad behavior against women.

“2) The president must always be the focus of attention. Aides who get too big for their britches won’t be around for long.”

From columnist Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Trump approaches governing like a spectator, often acting as if someone else is really in charge. He seems most comfortable commenting from the sidelines, like an old Fox News viewer yelling at the television. Trump doesn’t know how to do the actual job of president and doesn’t seem aware that he doesn’t know. And few people around him know any better.

“Being president, it turns out, actually requires certain skills. Presidents gain influence through rhetorical leadership — with the tools of inspiration. They gain influence through policy innovation and legislative leadership. They gain influence through motivating the permanent bureaucracy to accept and pursue their agenda.”

From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Trump has put a sober conservative on the Supreme Court, and many conservative judges on the lower courts. This provides greater balance in the judiciary. In a split country, split courts—balance—is probably the best we can do.

“The economy is improving. And Mr. Trump helped pass a tax bill that was better—maybe a little, maybe a lot, but certainly better—than what it replaced.

“Not bad for a first year in office!

“So you, moderate, centrist professional, should feel high enthusiasm for Donald Trump. And yet you don’t, not really. What you feel is disquiet, and you know what it’s about: The worrying nature of Mr. Trump himself. You look at his White House and see what appears to be epic instability, mismanagement and confusion. You see his resentments and unpredictability.

“Here is what you try to wrap your head around if you are a centrist or moderate who’s trying to be fair. You think: On some level this is working. And on some level he is crazy.”

So, even a retinue of analysts smarter than me remains convulsed. We have a president in office who is not up to the job he faces in leading this country, not to mention playing a critical role in world affairs.

As voters, we knew that last time around, but we had a dubious choice – Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Not sure we made the right one.