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.

Well, there are probably many answers to the question in the headline, but for me one lack is paramount and can be listed in one word: Context.

It some ways, lack of context always has been the case as reporters for newspapers, radio stations and TV outlets struggle to fit content into constraints of space and time. But, today, the lack of context is more pronounced than ever.

The apparent journalistic quest today is either to race for a scoop in the battle for subscribers or viewers, or to place an emphasis on the battle between opponents rather than on the context of the battle.

In a great quote from a newspaper friend of mine, he said “reporters sit on the promontory watching the battle below, then go down to the field to shoot the wounded.”

The lack-of-context problem is even more severe given two conditions – one old and one new. The old condition, especially in the TV business, is a focus on getting pictures that get the audience’s attention. The context of the picture is often irrelevant.

The new condition is the huge prevalence of “social media,” which means there is no longer a news cycle. Or, the fact is that the “cycle” is a second or two in duration.

Add to all this another unfortunate, but true, fact: In the rush to produce, reporters often get facts wrong and rarely admit the same later as accurate information comes into focus.

In a piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal late last month, William Luti, a retired career naval officer and former special assistant for defense policy and strategy to President George W. Bush, paints a grim picture of reporting on the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War.

As an aside, remember that war and the Tet Offensive? If only because it occurred so many years ago, many in the generation behind me do not know much about it. But even though I did not go to Vietnam to fight, I remember the war very well, especially because a number of my friends were fated to enter that hell.

Luti asks the question: Did fake news lose the Vietnam War? And he contends that journalists wrongly portrayed the Tet Offensive as a U.S. defeat and never corrected the record.

Luti goes on: “Seemingly out of nowhere, a shock wave hit South Vietnam on January 30, 1968. In a coordinated assault unprecedented in ferocity and scale, more than 100,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers stormed out of their sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia. They went on to attack more than 100 towns and cities across South Vietnam.

“The following 77 days changed the course of the Vietnam War. The American people were bombarded with a nightly stream of devastating television and daily print reporting. Yet, what they saw was so at odds with the reality on the ground that many Vietnam veterans believe truth itself was under attack.

“Despite their ferocity, by most objective military standards, the communists achieved none of their goals. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces held fast, regrouped and fought back. By late March, they had achieved a decisive victory over the communist forces. Hanoi wouldn’t be able to mount another full-scale invasion of South Vietnam until the 1972 Easter offensive.

“But in living rooms across America, the nightly news described an overwhelming American defeat. The late Washington Post Saigon correspondent Peter Braestrup later concluded the event marked a major failure in the history of American journalism.”

I thought about Vietnam this week because a friend of mine, who lived through the war, but did not have to fight there, is heading over to vacation in that country. Several other friends have done the same.

For my part, I have no desire to go there – for vacation or any other reason. For me, it was a place of war and incalculable human suffering on all sides. No need to re-live that on site.

But back to my main point. Journalism in the Tet Offensive suffered, and so did our perceptions of a terrible war. If opposition to the Vietnam War was warranted, so be it. But opposition should not have centered on inaccurate and out-of-context reporting.

Learning lessons from Tet, as well as from a host of more recent events, we need better and more accurate reporting – reporting that is accurate and provides context.

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.

Washington Post writer Richard Cohen asks a good question in a recent column.

“…in any reading of the rise of Nazi Germany, you come to a dead stop: How did this happen? How did a nut like Hitler manage to take over one of the world’s most advanced and civilized nations? The question becomes particularly acute when you consider the jumble of criminals, incompetents and ideological zealots he had around him. One answer to the question is that others in Germany thought Hitler could prove useful.

Then Cohen goes on to draw this parallel.

“Much the same thing happened in the United States with Trump. Trump was always a poster boy of the selfish, egomaniacal, ignorant, bragging, cruel rich kid, whose mirror was the sleazy pages of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post. Trump’s oxygen was the leaked item, without which he would die the suffocating death of being shown to a bad table.

“All this was known about Trump — that and his sly approach to women. But by the time Trump ran for president, he had also mounted the attack on Barack Obama that charged — against all evidence — that the African-American president was African only. This was a revolting and racist allegation to which Trump, to the knowledge of those who have recently asked him about it, still clings. The man’s true religion is a farrago of conspiracy theories. He believes, sincerely, in the unbelievable.”

For my part, I have drawn Trump parallels to Hitler before and rested uneasy then as now with the perception. And, then, I made what could be called a mistake last month by watching a program on the History Channel outlining the downfall of Hitler near the end of World War II.

It was an excellent program, but, for me, the mistake was that it was a reprise of the incredibly vicious regime of Hitler which remind me of a perspective I had more than a year ago: Comparisons between Hitler and Trump.

Unsettling? Yes!

Trump swept into office in a way similar to the process by which Hitler took over post World War I Germany.

Columnist Eugene Robinson has provided a list of comparisons between Hitler and Trump:

• Like Hitler, Trump has watched approvingly as his followers, during the election campaign, used violence to silence hecklers, dissenters and protesters.
• Like Hitler, Trump offers few real plans or strategies for confronting the nation’s challenges, giving voters instead the assurance that he, by force of personality alone, will conquer those challenges.
• Like Hitler, Trump presented the electorate a scapegoat for its fears and vulnerabilities. Hitler gave his people the Jews. Trump has given his the Muslims.
• Like Hitler, Trump proposes to register, surveil and restrict the scapegoat populace. Nor, like Hitler, is he overly concerned with the niceties of civil or human rights.

And, this from Robinson: “It all brings home something that has become glaringly obvious: While many of us have lamented Trump’s improbable rise to political prominence, the real problem is not him and never was. Rather, the problem is that thing deep down in some of us that responds to him, that small, primeval thing so filled with uncertainty, fear and fury that it will suspend both logic and compassion to worship a man whose very name has become a symbol of all that is hateful and violative of American ideals.”

No, Trump is not Hitler. Hitler was a singular figure who committed a singular crime. But Trump’s dominance of the Republican field during the campaign and his first year in office offer vivid evidence of the depth of alienation that he has both created and capitalized upon.

His use of the word “treason” to describe Democrats who did not applaud for him in his State of the Union speech is only the latest over-the-top utterance from this president.

The fact that Hitler’s fascism was able to steal the hearts and minds of Germans makes you ask yourself how a supposedly enlightened nation could have fallen for the lie.

That makes me wonder how we, as Americans, will reconcile ourselves to Trump’s conduct whether or not it smacks one of the most reviled figures in history, Hitler.

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 am not sure I need to add my voice to the chorus of those analyzing President’s Trump’s first State of the Union speech, but “need” doesn’t drive this response – “wanting” to provide own comments does.

First, one news outlet even catalogued how many times Trump used a superlative word – a word such as best – in his 80-minute speech, comparing his total with other presidents. Too much analysis, too quickly and too superficial, I say.

Last night after the speech, one of the best pieces of analysis I saw came from Republican consultant Steve Schmidt. With a near frown on his face, he said he thought the speech underscored the fact that were two realities.

One was Trump’s attempt to set a tone of bi-partisanship and cooperation, even though some Democrats appeared to question the veracity of the offer.

The other reality, Schmidt said, was that the speech was given against a backdrop of a year of almost constant tweeting from the president, which continues to threaten almost of all of his accomplishments.

Schmidt, for one, said we should believe the State of the Union only if we see now a different Trump, one who follows up on his pleas for cooperation with the same attitude.

For me, I would add that Trump continues to strike me as an actor on a stage, albeit a reality show stage.

He says and does one thing in the first act and, then, enters the second act without regard to the first.

This time, the first act was Trump’s first year in office when he flouted the normal decorum of the presidency, but went far beyond decorum to lobby grenades via twitter against almost anyone.   To paint the picture of two Trumps, one news outlet last night said his tweets had cast aspersions on 83 Democrats, including Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, whom Trump labeled “crying Chuck.”

As I listened to the speech last night, it was almost as if the first year of the Trump presidency had not occurred. Portions of the speech would have been more appropriate for an inauguration where he called Americans to work together for the common good.

To no one’s surprise, Democrats were not impressed by Trump’s speech.

In one case, Representative Joseph Kennedy, delivering one of six Democrat responses, lamented the “fault lines of a fractured country.” He said the Trump Administration places outsize importance on “your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size. They are turning life into a zero-sum game where, in order for one to win, another must lose.”

Who knows which version – Trump one, Trump two or the Democrat criticism – will carry the day?

For me, I try to remember that a State of the Union speech is only a moment in time, not the full story. That will be written by all us if we aspire to a better America, one inclusive of everyone who shares the American dream.

That includes Trump as we watch whether his daily actions measure up to rhetoric.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers put it this way this morning: “The recurring evidence of the last year is that a disciplined performance like Trump’s on Tuesday’s is no guarantee of future comportment, but his presidency and country will be better off if it is.”

************

And this footnote. Several news outlets are reporting that Oregon’s junior senator, Jeff Merkley, still holds aspirations of running for president next time around. That’s hard for me to believe, given my record with Merkley when he was an elected official in Oregon who behaved himself as if he knew every answer to every question and assumed anyone trying to lobby him was bereft of honesty.  Talk about being self-righteous!  On the tube last night, it was interesting, though not surprising, that Oregon’s two senators, Merkley and Ron Wyden, apparently preferred to sit on their hands without offering any support to anything Trump said. Perhaps that’s just what the minority does in all such speeches, frowning all the 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.

Why, you may ask, do I open this department from time to time?

Well, there are at least two reasons:

• First, many of those who write are smarter than I am, so I benefit from their perspectives and want to share the benefit.
• Second, the quotes prompt me to think from a broader perspective than just my own, which is a good thing for all of us.

So, the Department, one of two I direct, is open again.

From Wall Street Journal editorial writers:  “The ‘secular stagnation’ thesis is having a bad year. Readers will recall that this idea, popularized by former Obama White House economist Larry Summers, held that America is fated to endure slow economic growth. This conveniently justified the Obama era’s historic slow growth as an inevitable deus ex machina, and Mr. Summers’s policy advice was for government to borrow more money to spend on public works.

“A year after the Obama economists left town, stagnation may be following them back to Harvard. The Commerce Department announced Friday that the U.S. economy grew 2.6 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2017, below what most economists expected but the third straight quarter of solid growth.”

Comment: Economic growth is one result of having Republicans, including President Donald Trump, in charge in Washington D.C. as they surmounted Democrat opposition to produce the first major tax reform in 30 years. One hopes that Trump will allow the positive results to rule rather than denigrating the status with his pompous tweets.

From Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal:  “Yet if Mr. Booker doesn’t understand the hell that migrants often leave, Mr. Trump doesn’t understand the value they bring with them. The president doesn’t want the U.S. to take in so many ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ as Emma Lazarus called them in her famed 1883 poem, ‘The New Colossus.’ He prefers a merit-based system that would award points for attributes like education, skills and English-language proficiency.

“This is not racism, and providing that Mr. Trump doesn’t sharply cut immigration at the same time, it is not nativism. But it is likely a mistake. The U.S. has been built on the hard work of hungry migrants willing to make sacrifices for a future generation. They are ambitious risk-takers like none other.”

Comment: Columnist O’Grady makes several good points about the status of the immigration debate in the nation’s capitol. When you hear the diatribes from both sides, just remember that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants who, along with native Americans, produced a great country, as even as both sought a better life for themselves.

And, I say this has more than a person of Norwegian heritage because, of course, Trump says he wants to welcome more Norwegians to this country.

James Hohmann in the Washington Post as he covered a Charles Koch group-led meeting in Southern California:  “Now the network’s donors realize that their fortunes are tied to Trump, at least to some degree. His policies have been better than they expected, but his personal behavior has been worse. There’s quiet exasperation and palpable concern that the president’s reality-TV antics and racially charged statements could wind up generating a backlash that taints their brand and sets back their cause.

“’I’m not a fan of his style of doing things,’ said Bill O’Neill, the retired president of Leaseway Transportation, during a cocktail reception Sunday night. ‘I think it hurts him and hurts some of the causes he supports. I think his style gets in the way, but I’ve been trying to look beyond that.’”

Comment: The Koch family has come in for substantial criticism over the years, much of it from the left, which cannot tolerate the involvement of the family in politics. I don’t know about all things Koch, of course, but the point above – “There’s quiet exasperation and palpable concern that the president’s reality-TV antics and racially charged statements could wind up generating a backlash that taints their brand and sets back their cause” – is worth noting.

Trump’s antics threaten to jeopardize various public policy successes in the last year. It’s those successes – successes labeled by me from my just right-of-center centrist persuasion – that should carry the day in the mid-term elections.

Who knows if they will, especially with the reality TV host in charge.

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 direct two departments – the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering. I have full and complete authority to run each as I see fit.

So, today, I am opening the Department of Pet Peeves.

1. “Essential government services:” Will someone please tell me what it means for a government program to be “essential?”  If programs are not essential, then why do they exist?  Now, I suspect the reason for the term is to find a way to divide government services into categories from the most important to the less important.  But, still, the term “essential” — or “non-essential” — conveys a terrible impression to the general public.

So, I say, change the name.

2. Fake news: I wish there was a better definition for this term, a relatively new one in politics. When President Trump uses it, as he did in Davos, Switzerland yesterday (in relation to reports that, at one point, he directed his general counsel to fire Robert Mueller), he probably means that he doesn’t like what the media is reporting.

But, to me, a former journalist, fake news means something else. It refers to what happens in society today when folks distribute “news” over social media which is definitively not true. They do it only to get a rise out of readers.

As I have said before in this blog, the definition of “news” is difficult to pinpoint in society today. But, for me – remember I am a former journalist — news is what an editor or publisher specifies it to be.

This was driven home to me many years ago when I was applying for job in Salem as assistant director of the, then, Department of Human Resources. If I got the job, one of my responsibilities would be to handle media relations for the Division of Corrections, an administrative arm including all of the state’s prisons (then there were only three, compared to 14 today), as well as parole and probation services. Today, Corrections is a separate department of state government.

The division director, Bob Watson, who became a good friend when I got the job, asked me what “news” was during my interview. I gave him what I considered to be a good answer then – and it is still true today. It’s what an editor or publisher specifies it to be.

So, Trump, you are wrong about “fake news.”

3. Believing the hospital and insurance taxes are new ones: The recent public vote on the hospital and health insurance taxes included a wrong fact – or at least one out of context. It was that the taxes are somehow new ones.

No.

They were first instituted in 2003. The goal was to create a pot of state money that could serve to garner federal matching funds under the Medicaid program. More than 40 states have engaged in this matching fund scheme, which is entirely legal under federal law.

I lobbied the tax issue for more than 10 years as I represented Providence Health System, which, today as in 2003, supported the taxes as a way to fund care for low-income Oregonians under Medicaid.

I have had my own questions about this tax over the years, but, as they say, it is what it is – and that is a compromise. The definition of the term is that no one likes all of its aspects, but it is the best one can do under the circumstances.

Opponents of the tax this time around portrayed the phrase “hold the possible hostage in pursuit of the perfect,” which I add is almost never possible.

The good news is that tax opponents lost time around, but it remains a goal for the legislature to design an approach for the future that is fair and taxes the widest swath of payers – which, for me, is the definition of fair. For now, Oregon voters have given the legislature more time to do the deed.

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.

As the preamble to this blog notes, I was a lobbyist for nearly 40 years and, during that time, there were a number of sayings that caught my attention.

Call the sayings “lobby talk.”

And, even as OLD former lobbyist, I remember using them as if it was yesterday.

Why, you may ask, write about them now? Good question. For me, it’s just a way to reflect back on my past because, in retirement, I have time to do so between golf games.  But, it’s also true that the “lobby talk sayings” may relate to real life as much as they do to the craft I practiced for 40 years.

Here are a few of the sayings.

• The possible is held hostage in pursuit of the impossible perfect

This is the way to describe what still happens in elective government today. What’s possible is sacrificed – call the possible “compromise” – in pursuit of what cannot occur, which is the perfect.  I have watched this occur too many times, both in Congress and in the Oregon Legislature.

• What goes around comes around

The first time I heard the phrase was more than 30 years ago when it was uttered by Senator Mike Thorne, the Democrat from Pendleton who, then, was Senate co-chair of the Joint Ways and Means Committee. [He later became my client when he served as executive director of the Port of Portland and I continue to have the utmost respect for him.]

The phrase was meant to indicate that politics is often a circular game. If you lose at one point, you might win later when the issue comes back around for re-consideration. So, the saying is actually a moral – don’t get mad over one loss so being made inhibits the ability to win later.

• It’s like the camel’s nose under the tent

This saying refers to the likelihood, in lobbying, that the first step toward passage of a piece of legislation could become a floor for further steps. I often argued against the camel.

• It’s the first step down a slippery slope

Similar to the saying above, this is meant, again, to indicate that one step toward approval of a bill could simply provide more chances for further steps. Again, I often used this phrase to argue against that first step.

• What are the legislative sideboards?

I had a client who often asked this good question. His interest suggested either of two things: (1) That there was a standard legislative process to work through, one that had boundaries, or (2) that there are understood ways of operating in the legislative process at the Capitol in Salem that might logically be known to lobbyists but not to citizens.

• All hat and no cattle

When I first heard this phrase at the Capitol, I couldn’t stop laughing. It says so much in only a few words. When I heard it, it was used to illustrate that someone who had introduced a bill had no idea about what that bill would do, but introduced it only for its supposed, superficial political benefit. So, “all hat and no cattle.” Right!

How important are these old sayings? Well, not very. But, on occasion, they do constitute more than just lobby talk; by extension, they illustrate something about life in general.

 *********

A footnote: This may be a good blog to include a note on the unexpected passing of lobby colleague of mine for more than 30 years, Mike Dewey. After working for and then taking over a lobby from his parents, Mike served with distinction as a lobbyist for more than 44 years. We were never in the same firm, but we often worked for and against each other, as professional lobbyists do. Both of us managed to reflect the “disagree, but do agreeably” mantra. His kids in Salem grew up with mine, so we had that family connection, as well. Comfort and solace to his wife, Kathie, and his children, Meagan and Matt, as well as all of the family.

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.

My state lobby colleague, Dale Penn from CFM Strategic Communications, played a key role in passage of Measure 101 at the polls this week.

In response, he wrote a piece for CFM’s website that I reprint here because it very effectively captures what occurred at the polls.

Here’s Dale’s piece.

Voters in yesterday’s special election overwhelmingly approved of Measure 101, which leaves in place the Medicaid funding plan approved by the 2017 Oregon legislature. It also lifts a huge fiscal burden off the shoulders of lawmakers in the short 2018 session that begins February 5.

The die was cast when, early in the evening, results indicated nearly 80 percent of Multnomah County voters approved Measure 101. Even though half of Oregon’s 36 counties, many of them rural, voted against Measure 101, they were heavily outvoted with strong support among higher population centers across the state.

In a low-turnout election, the side that wins is usually the side that can motivate voters to cast ballots. The pro-Measure 101 campaign had the broad coalition support, cash to advertise and the foot-power to get out the vote. Measure 101 opponents had none of those things. More than 180 organizations, both large and small, came together in dozens of advocacy events to show support in protecting healthcare coverage funding approved during the 2017 legislative session.

Referenda usually start as political quarrels in legislative sessions, which was the case for Measure 101. Whereas in recent sessions, funding mechanisms paying for Oregon’s Medicaid program had enjoyed bipartisan support, the enhanced tax proposal in 2017 met with partisan objections from some Republican lawmakers.

Led by Rep. Julie Parrish (R-West Linn/Tualatin) and Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-Roseburg), opponents called it unfair and declared it a “sales tax on health care.” Similar messaging was used successfully during last year’s M97 debate and opponents were trying to drum up support from Oregon voters who reacted to that rhetoric.

Supporters of the admittedly complicated Medicaid funding mechanism fought back, saying it was the best bipartisan plan to raise the money necessary to attract federal Medicaid matching dollars. They said opponents raised objections, but offered no politically viable alternative funding plan.

In the end, the $3.6 million campaign drowned out the opposition campaign, which reportedly spent less than $150,000 (a significant chunk of that raised in personal loans from Rep. Hayden). While TV ads provided air cover, the real difference was in the get-out-the-vote drive, aided by union and hospital supporters of Measure 101.

A key takeaway from this election may be the impact on future efforts by minority legislators or interests who seek to alter agreements they oppose. With M101 receiving more than a 6o per cent majority, those parties may think twice before attempting similar fights on other legislative packages. Oregon’s referendum process is there for a reason, but legislators already have a mechanism for debating the validity and appropriateness of these type of budget and policy issues. Through the election process, voters can hold their elected leaders accountable for their work.

More than 1 million Oregonians are covered by Medicaid, which represented a fertile target audience to turn out to vote. In a relatively low-turnout election, a motivated group of voters can make the difference.

This was an election decided by urban Oregon voters. Majorities in big counties for Measure 101 ranged from 79 per cent in Multnomah County to more than 65 per cent in Benton and Lane counties. Jackson County in Southern Oregon went 58 per cent for Measure 101. Suburban Washington County favored Measure 101 by more than 60 per cent and Clackamas County, which Parrish represents, gave the measure a 58 per cent plurality. Marion County went for Measure 101 by a 55 to 45 per cent margin.

Oregon’s last special election was in 2010 when the state debated M66/67, which raised personal income tax revenue on the state’s highest-earning individuals and corporations. In that election, 1.28 million Oregonians cast ballots, representing 62.7 percent of eligible voters. Final numbers for M101 are yet to be released, but estimates are significantly lower.

The victory for Measure 101 was declared at 8 p.m. when the first batch of ballot totals were released.

Further, a couple reflections from me:

1. The taxes on hospitals and health insurers actually have been in place in Oregon for almost 15 years. There are now new taxes, as alleged by the opponents. They were designed in 2003 to create of state money that could be used to garner federal matching dollars under the Medicaid program. Of course, over the years, there have been changes to the taxes, but the fact is that they have been a staple of state financing for years. That doesn’t make them good taxes; it just means they have been around for some time.
2. I have had my own concerns about the tax (is taxes a relatively small proportion of payers to fund what should be a societal responsibility), but I also have come to a consistent conclusion that hospital-insurance taxes are a compromise that works. So, no reason to hold hostage the possible in search of the impossible perfect.

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.

From Jason Gay in the Wall Street Journal: “For the first time since 2017, the New England Patriots are going back to the Super Bowl.  Twelve long months, the fans of this franchise have been forced to wait to return to this game!

“I think I just saw a couple of Detroit Lions fans walk into traffic.

“Do you realize that 95 per cent of Bostonians are physically addicted to Duck Boat championship parades? It’s a public-health crisis. Dunkin’ Donuts now serves a flavor called Brimming Entitlement.

“Even crazier: Belichick smiled when the Pats sealed the win. Smiled!

“At first, I thought he had stepped on one of defensive coordinator Matt Patricia’s sharpened pencils, and was gritting his teeth in pain, but I believe it was, indeed, a smile. Photo evidence is being submitted to the National Archives as we speak.

“You have to love the Grumpy Lobster Boat Captain, Coach Belicheck. Did you see the cut-off sweatshirt-slash-undershirt Belichick wore to his postgame press conference? I’m not saying the media should be offended, but it was the kind of thing someone wears to clean squirrel nests out of the gutters.”

Comment: Gay, as usual, demonstrates his gift for satirical humor. I start with this quote, not because the coming Super Bowl is the most important issue these days. Rather, it provides a time to get away from the often harsh reality and focus on an annual spectacle.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “’Our country was founded by geniuses, but it’s being run by idiots,’” Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters on Friday night.”

Comment: Good point. Kennedy’s comment came before the shutdown was over, but it was a solid illustration of the depths to which government has sunk in the U.S.

From Gerard Baker, editor of the Wall Street Journal:  “Everyone in Washington seems to be trying to calculate who gets blamed for the shutdown—or indeed if it has much political effect at all. The Journal’s Gerald F. Seib writes that the turmoil reflects the current state of the U.S. political system. The process, he says, is being driven not by those in the broad center but by those in the more narrow and partisan ideological bases of the two parties.”

Comment: Shutdown politics rears its ugly head again as extremes on both sides look for political gains. Usually, despite claims to the contrary, no one wins…see below.

From Gerald Seib in the WSJ:  “Most people, inside Washington and out, don’t want the government to shut down. And a majority of people, inside Washington and out, want to find a way to help the Dreamers, immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally when they were children.

“Yet, the government has shut down because of a dispute over the Dreamers. How does this kind of thing happen?

“The shutdown happened because most politicians worry more about a backlash from their bases for not being rigid enough than about an adverse reaction from the broader public for being too rigid.

Put differently, for many politicians, the danger lies less in the shutdown than in anger within the base for failing to push all the way to a shutdown. Activists in the bases, after all, provide the energy in election season, and they have been increasingly willing to shoot their own kin when they prove too willing to compromise with the other side.

Comment: True. Extremes, not the center, control the process.

From the Wall Street Journal: “’Democrats went into battle and then buckled and weren’t ready for it,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of The Progressive Change Campaign Committee. There should have been an outside game that was planned.’

“How Senate Democrats got to the point of charging forward on Friday night and then pulling back on Monday morning is the story of a Republican party more organized than the Democratic insurgents and centrists in both parties who challenged the partisan rhetoric of both Mr. McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.)., forging a path forward during meetings where one senator nearly broke a glass elephant with a ‘talking stick.’

“Over in the department of futile and stupid gestures, the Senate on Monday voted 81-18 to end the government shutdown that Democrats had insisted on late last week. The politics apparently didn’t turn out to be the winner the Democrats anticipated, so they bailed out and called retreat a victory.”

Comment: Finally? The moderate center in the U.S. Senate emerged to bring sense out of nonsense despite comments from such over-the-top advocates as Adam Green who, from the extreme left, want continued stalemate. Give the moderates plaudits.

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.

One of my favorite political quotes of all time belongs to General Colin Powell who, when he decided not to run for president a number of years ago, provided one of main reasons:

“I bemoan the loss of civility in politics.”

Well, I am no Colin Powell, but I share his perspective.

So does James Hohmann writing in the Washington Post this week:

“Another idea:  Showing some basic manners and civility might help heal some of our national wounds.”

Hohmann reports that two former White House social secretaries, Jeremy Bernard and Lea Berman, have co-authored a new book called: “Treating People Well: The Extraordinary Power of Civility at Work and In Life.”

Bernard worked for Barack and Michelle Obama from 2011 to 2015, and Berman worked for George and Laura Bush from 2005 to 2007.

In their book, they write: “Some people heap disrespect on anyone who dares oppose them, tap into anger and manipulate it for their own benefit, and don’t seem to see anything wrong with that. If bad behavior is contagious — as many studies have shown it is — we’re in an epidemic.”

The elephant in room, but not called out by name, is President Trump.

Roxanne Roberts writing in the Post’s Style section, put it this way:

“His belittling tweets and personal insults are the antithesis of conventional presidential discourse. Some people see the blunt language and name-calling as a sign of principle and strength.  Or are they just bad manners? Call it what you will, but it’s bad for the country.

“Good people can and do disagree, but a lack of basic respect is corrosive and crippling to democracy itself.”

One of the authors of the book mentioned above said “I think that treating people well now could be seen as a form of passive resistance and a rejection of what we see in the public arena. For generations, we’ve looked to our leaders and followed their behavior. Now, maybe the leaders need to look at the people and the way we conduct our lives. … In the past, presidents did not speak ill of others in a personal way. It seems to be something this president is comfortable with.”

How can we make an uncivil world more civil? Ignore as much of lack of civility as you can. Deflect what you can’t ignore. Consider viewpoints other than your own may have merit. And when things are really terrible, refuse to be drawn into the drama of the bad behavior because that’s usually what the person behaving badly is seeking – affirmation.

As I write this, politicians in the Nation’s Capitol are stuck in a government shutdown, which is a tribute to bad blood and immaturity on both sides – in other words, lack of civility. To hear both sides talk, it is as if they hate the other side.

I was struck earlier this week when one national news outlet gave Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, clearly a junior senator, time to utter standard Democrat themes blaming Republicans and President Trump for everything.

Almost at the same time, Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee was mouthing just the reverse – blame Democrats.

No less a Republican leader than House Speaker Paul Ryan said this: “Mr. Ryan told cheering GOP lawmakers that Republicans had been reasonable while Democrats had overreached and that the minority party was now seeking a way out. The federal government is needlessly shut down because of Senate Democrats.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was over-the-top in his anti-Trump and anti-Republican comments on the Senate floor. He labeled the shutdown, “The Trump Shutdown,” only to receive a rejoinder from Republicans, labeling the impasse the “Schumer Shutdown.”

So, again, lack of civility prevails in Washington, D.C. Whose fault? Both sides!

Let’s hope for a return to civility and a mature ability to get business done for the benefit of those in the general public who want good government.

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.

Remember, this is one of two departments I direct – and I have absolute freedom to include what I want to include and to ignore what I want to ignore.

How’s that for sounding Trumpian?

Now, on to the quotes.

From Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal: “When candidate Trump first referred to ‘the swamp,’ he was talking about the bog of Beltway lobbyists and ‘establishment’ politicians. But President Trump’s first year in office has revealed that the real swamp is the unchecked power of those who actually run Washington: The two million members of the federal bureaucracy. That civil-servant corps was turbocharged by the Obama administration’s rule-making binge, and it now has more power—and more media enablers—than ever. We live in an administrative state, run by a left-leaning, self-interested governing class that is actively hostile to any president with a deregulatory or reform agenda.

Comment: So, yes, give the Trump Administration its due here. It has moved to undo the regulatory overreach of the Obama Administration. One hopes that the goal is not just to undo regulations, but to undo ones that don’t work or that go beyond an appropriate government role. That is a key distinction, one I hope the Trump Administration remembers.

From James Hohmann in the Washington Post: “THE BIG IDEA:  Following President Trump’s tweets can feel like watching a short man drive a Hummer. His fragile ego is always looking to overcompensate. The latest manifestation of that is downright Napoleonic.

“North Korean leader Kim John un said Monday that the United States is ‘within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.’

“Twelve minutes after Fox News highlighted that quote last night, Trump tweeted, ‘Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a nuclear button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his, and my button works!’”

Comment: So, the motive from Trump continues to be the “mine is bigger than yours” claim. Who cares? The nuclear buttons are a source of real concern, worth more than absurd quotes and tweets.

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page: “Trump has genuine accomplishments about which it is appropriate to boast — including tax reform, judicial nominees who are reshaping the federal courts, and a stop to new regulation. Yet even with the economy growing faster, and a tight labor market beginning to bid up wages, Mr. Trump’s job approval remains below 40 per cent in the Real Clear Politics average.

“The paradox results from Mr. Trump’s governing behavior. His attacks on all and sundry have polarized the electorate even more than it was on Election Day in 2016. He retains the support of his most fervent base but he has lost support among many who voted against Hillary Clinton more than they did for him. Those Americans tend to think that a nuclear missile exchange isn’t a laughing matter.”

Comment: Well said. Trump can’t stop talking or tweeting and both compromise consideration of the Administration’s first-year accomplishments.

From Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal:  “My antipathies nicely divided, I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate in the last election. When it was over, I was pleased that Hillary Clinton had lost and depressed that Donald Trump had won—and if that ain’t being riven I don’t know what is. But once Mr. Trump was elected I wished him well. Not that he made it easy to do so. His style was, to put it gently, alien to my notion of a serious leader. Modesty, civility, a sense of measure, regard for the gravity of his office—none of these arrows were in his quiver.

“Very well, I thought, my job, as someone hoping for his country’s success, was to separate Mr. Trump’s personality from his policies. I am, after all, in favor of some of his ideas: holding the other nations in NATO responsible for paying their share of its cost, moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reducing our contribution to the essentially anti-American United Nations, working to clarify the muddle of ObamaCare, reforming the tax system. Separate the personality from the policies: One would think that easy enough to do. Mr. Trump has, by the nature of his rebarbative personality, made that a difficult, if not impossible, task.”

Comment: A solid goal to separate personality from politics? Yes. But perhaps impossible – and Trump makes it so.

From Ordie Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University in a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:  “Though there are surely wonderful Norwegians, the government in Oslo calls to mind the Barry Switzer line: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

Comment: As a person of Norwegian heritage, I noted that in his Oval Office distribute, Trump said he would welcome more Norwegians to immigrate. Yet, the quote from the Wall Street Journal indicates a truth: Norwegians have benefitted from their geographic position – and surely, as they used to say on the Seinfeld TV show, “there’s nothing wrong with that.”