This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

THIS IS THE SECOND IN A TWO-PART SERIES ON THE 2022 GOVERNOR’S RACE IN OREGON; OF COURSE, THERE COULD BE MORE PARTS IF THE SPIRIT MOVES ME AS THE ELECTION DRAWS CLOSER

**********

Oregon Republican voters will see more viable gubernatorial candidates on their ballots this May than in any primary going back at least three decades.

That could mean the winningnominee heads into the general election with a slimminority of the party’s backing.

So reports the Oregonian newspaper, which gives a half dozen contenders a shot at winning the GOP nomination, based on  factors including fundraising, name recognition, and history of connections at the grassroots level.

Contenders include a former Republican nominee for governor, the previous Oregon House Republican leader, a formerly powerful lawmaker out of politics for two decades, a mayor with a strong anti-COVID mandate following, and a political consultant well-known in conservative circles.

In all, 19 Republicans have filed to run for governor, including several candidates with a claim to past electoral success, bigtime fundraising or signs of popular support.  It’s an ungodly number, which means that almost anyone could win.

Leaders include:  Sandy Mayor Stan Pulliam, an insurance executive who built a following during the pandemic by vocally opposing the governor’s COVID mandates; former House Republican Leader Christine Drazan of Canby; Salem oncologist Bud Pierce, who was the 2016 Republican gubernatorial nominee; and former state lawmaker and corporate executive Bob Tiernan of Lake Oswego.

What I posted yesterday was that one of the leading Democrats — former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek and current Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read — will be favored come out on top next November, though, of course, the primary election comes first.

Further, an independent, former Oregon State Senator Betsy Johnson, will make a spirited run for the state’s top political job.  In truth, it is possible that Johnson, in the general election, could draw votes from both the Democrat and the Republican.

I believe Johnson has a genuine chance to win come November.  Not assured or even probable, but possible.

Also, keep watch on the parade of dollars – some big dollars – to a number of the campaigns. 

Another Oregonian newspaper story reported this yesterday:

“Unlike the vast majority of other states, Oregon allows unlimited contributions to political campaigns – and corporate titans, former elected officials and labor unions are among those who have used their monetary muscle in 2022 to try to influence voters’ choices.”

Does money talk in politics?  The answer is yes.  But it is not the only voice heard in the din of a major election.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

You couldn’t tell it from the first debate among Democrat candidates for Oregon governor, but the race promises to be one of the most interesting in recent history.

The debate, hosted by the AFL-CIO in Portland last week, did not feature major attacks from any candidates, including the two front-runners.  Both of them, according to a report in the Oregonian newspaper, staked out early positions they hope will carry them to victory in the primary later this spring, not to mention the general election in November.

If victory comes for a D in November, it will be typical for Oregon in the sense that holders of the top political job have been Democrats for more than 35 years since the last Republican, Vic Atiyeh, held the office.  [Full disclosure; I worked for Atiyeh.]

Here’s the way the race looks at the moment:

• There are two major Democrat candidates – long-time, but now former Speaker of the Oregon House, Tina Kotek, and Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read.  Both have long resumes in Oregon politics and pull essentially from the same set of voters.
• Republican candidates, as usual, have only a long-shot to end up as governor, but one, former Oregon House Minority Leader Christian Drazan, could be lightning rod if only because she detests Kotek.  Of course, she would have to win the R primary and Kotek the D primary for the two to face-off next fall.  But, even in the primary, look for Drazan to go after Kotek.
• Independent candidate, former Oregon State Senator Betsy Johnson appears headed toward having a chance in the general election, contrary to most previous independent candidacies in the state.  Johnson has been raising a lot of money and gaining the support of high-level political interests in the state, including some with boat-loads of money, which they will channel to her race.

Money isn’t always the final answer in politics, but ability to raise it is a test of an aspirant’s credentials.  So, on that score, Johnson gives a clear impression of being “in the race.”

About seven months before the general election, not to mention the primary, only a fool would hazard predictions of what will happen in the election.  Ever a fool, here I go.

First, my sense is that Kotek will prevail over Read, though with the political stature of both, it could be a close race.  Kotek will gain most of the big-money contributions from public employee unions and that likely will push her to a win, though Read no doubt will tout an endorsement from the Oregon Teamsters, as well as a record that is to the right of Kotek, even though still in the centrist left of the D party.

Second, it is not clear who will win the Republican primary.  The one with the most name familiarity, Salem doctor Bud Pierce, ran and lost last time around to Governor Kate Brown, but, as in the past, much of his political credentials do not escape Salem and Marion County. 

If I were betting today, I’d put my money on Drazan.

Third, Johnson is setting herself up for a strong run in the general election (as independent, she does not have to run in a primary) touting her Democrat credentials in the Oregon Senate, but also her clear ability to work with Republicans, which is what she did in the Senate, sometimes to the consternation of the Democrat Senate Caucus to which she “belonged.”

Last week, here in La Quinta, California, I met with one of my long-time friends, a very well-connected Oregonian who gave up his Republican registration a few years ago, given how far Donald Trump and cronies have pushed Republicans to the edge of sanity and reason, if not beyond.

This friend, a supporter of Johnson, put it very well when he said this:

“Betsy Johnson has a very real possibility to win in Oregon.  Not probable, but a possibility.”

I agree.  This friend is closer to the action in Oregon than I am, but it strikes me that Oregon may be ready for a political leader closer to the center than  the left.

I, for one, am ready for a real race for governor, one that gives Oregon voters a genuine choice – and that includes an independent candidate, Johnson.

As an independent myself, I cannot vote in a primary, so I look forward to a spirited race – a potential barn-burner as this blog headline suggests – as I decide how to cast my vote.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

There, I used one of my favorite words again – kerfuffle!

Doesn’t it just roll off the tongue?  But what does it mean?

The dictionary says this:  “A commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.”

This time the word applies to three cases of golf rules issues that arose last week at the Players Championship in Florida.

As a person interested in golf rules, I paid attention to each.  Here is a summary, with my comment in each case.

ISSUE #1: A TWO-SHOT PENALTY FOR PRO GOLFER KEEGAN BRADLEY

Playing well in brutal conditions Saturday, Bradley was dinged by the rule book as he was assessed a two-shot penalty on the 16th hole.  After marking his ball, a wind gust moved the ball.  Bradley replaced it, but was supposed to play it from where the ball came to rest.

According to several of my on-line golf publications, Bradley, in the moment, said the penalty angered him.  Two days later, he sounded more frustrated. 

He lashed out at officials as the infraction became magnified during the final round.

“Well, first off, I think the USGA needs to smarten up and change that rule,” Bradley said afterward.  “It’s so silly. They try to make the rules easier, and they never get it right.”

At issue was how Bradley proceeded after he put his mark down on the 16th green, when wind moved his ball. Bradley believed he was to play from where his mark was. But, because he hadn’t picked up his ball before it was blown, he should have played from the new spot, according to Rule 13.1d (2).  

Comment:  It’s time to make this rule more straight forward and simple so pro golfers – not to mention the rest of us – would know how to proceed.

ISSUE #2:  PRO GOLFER DANIEL BERGER INVOLVED IN BALL DROP LOCATION DISPUTE AT THE PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP

According to Golfweek, Daniel Berger’s chances of winning the Players Championship effectively ended with a splash at the 16th hole of the final round, but that’s when things got interesting.

Berger’s second shot at the par-5 from 234 yards landed in the lake right of the flag, but where the ball crossed into the penalty area became a topic of substantial conversation.,

As soon as Berger hit the golf ball in the air, he said, ‘Oh, water ball.”  Then, one of the pros playing with Berger, Victor Hovland said he was watching the whole flight, and it was just short right of the green in the water on 16.

When Berger went to drop his ball after a penalty stroke, Joel Dahmen, the third player in the group, and Hovland objected.

Berger was the under the impression that his shot faded into the water and crossed much closer to the hole.  Dahmen saw it differently, and told Berger he should be dropping at least 60 yards farther back.  Hovland sided with Dahmen.

Chief referee Gary Young tried to sort the matter, but, in cases such as this, the onus is on the players to find the best solution – even a compromise – rather than rely on a rules official to resolve the matter when he or she didn’t see the situation on site.  And, that’s what Young said.

Comment:  For all the kerfuffle captured by TV coverage, the solution, in the end, was right:   The players involved would have to agree on a resolution; it would have to be a consensus, as hard as that might to achieve.

ISSUE #3:  AN IMPOSSIBLY BAD BREAK FOR PRO GOLFER PAUL CASEY  [This one is not a rules penalty, but, rather, an example of a change in golf rules that should been done previously and should be done now.]

The Players Championship was strange and, on the last day, Monday, it got stranger.

Playing alongside leader Cameron Smith, Paul Casey stepped up to his tee shot on the par-5 16th with a window of opportunity.  Yes, the Englishman found himself two shots off Smith’s pace, but he’d just watched as the Aussie snap hooked his drive into trouble.  If Casey could make a few good swings coming down the stretch, the biggest victory of his career was within reach.

But first, he’d need to put his drive in the fairway.

Casey made the kind of swing under pressure that most can only dream of. His ball rocketed off the face, screaming through the thick Florida air on a collision course with the center of the fairway.  From there, he’d have a great chance to reach the green in two.

As Casey’s Pro V1 rolled down the fairway, it dodged divots and stray sod, and the commentators remarked what a great position he was in.

Then, calamity struck.

With the ball slowing to a stop, it banked to the right at just the last moment — and it finished embedded in another player’s pitch mark.

It was the kind of break that gives pro golfer’s nightmares.  In contention, coming down the stretch, and your ball finds trouble in the unlikeliest of places.

Golf rules provide relief for an embedded ball.  However, that is only if the golfer’s own ball embeds in its own pitch mark.  Since Casey’s ball embedded in another player’s pitch mark, he had to play it as it lies.

Comment:  From the time golf rules were changed a couple years ago, I have said a change that should have been made, which is to provide relief if a ball ended up in a divot or, as was the case with Casey, another player’s pitch mark.

What happened wasn’t fair to Casey.  Nor is it fair to maintain the rule for the rest of us.

See, being able to write all of this verifies that I have nothing better to do in the California desert than play golf, as well as focus on golf rules. 

One of my good friends wonders why this is the case.  This time, it’s because I get to use the word kerfuffle again.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The question in the headline has no answer, at least for a couple reasons:

• It is impossible to know the next steps of a despot political leader who has no ethics, morals, or scruples.
• And, that said, I am not close enough to the war in Ukraine – nor do I want to be – so I rely on news from the front compiled by reputable journalistic outfits.

I post this, even as the U.S. Congress has listened on-line to an urgent appeal from Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy for more help from the
West.

 

[As far as I can tell, this is the first time in history that a war leader, at the very time of war, has appeared virtually before a spell-bound Congress.]

Writing for the New York Times a day before Zelenskyy’s address, Peter Coy postulated that there are three reasons why Putin could decide to fight on in Ukraine, even though, so far, the war he started has not gone as well as he predicted.  For this blog, I give Coy full credit.

He started his analysis with this summary:  “The bloody invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster for President Vladimir Putin, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to give up.”

The three reasons he might forge ahead:

1. First is the sunk cost fallacy.  Professors of economics and business administration admonish their students to ignore costs that have already been incurred — i.e., sunk — in making decisions.  What’s done is done, after all.  You should make decisions based only on future costs and benefits and not throw good money after bad.

But people don’t always think so logically, especially in times of war. They want to fight on to justify the blood that has already been spilled. Otherwise, the fallen troops will have died in vain, the argument goes.

We can’t see into Putin’s mind — no doubt a scary place — but it’s easy to imagine that the losses he and Russia have already suffered weigh heavily in his decision making.  Can his entire military campaign have been in vain?  That would be a hard pill for him to swallow.

• A second idea that might lead Putin to fight on doesn’t have a name that Coy knows of, so he calls it the “golden spike theory.”  The golden spike was a railway spike driven in 1869 in Promontory Summit in the Utah Territory to complete the first transcontinental railroad, joining the segments coming from the east and the west.

The railroad was mostly useless until that final connection was made, after which it became immensely valuable.  Similarly, Putin may be thinking that just another few weeks of fighting will be enough to subdue Ukraine.

• A third reason Putin might fight on is that, however unlikely the prospect of success, the cost of a loss for him is too high.  This is called “gambling for resurrection.”  In finance, the board of a company or bank that’s at risk of going bankrupt might gamble for resurrection by pouring money into a risky scheme that stands even just a small chance of keeping the company out of creditors’ hands, figuring it has nothing to lose by trying.

Let’s say Putin realizes he’s in deep trouble.  Russia has become a pariah state.  His reputation, not great to begin with, is blackened.  And if he achieves nothing, he faces the risk of being overthrown by his own security and military elites.  He may feel, then, that he has little to lose by fighting on.

Coy adds that, for negotiators who are trying to stop the war, the challenge is to know which, if any, of these factors is motivating Putin’s murderous campaign.  In fact, it may be all three – or, who knows, something else.

Plus, Coy concludes, “You don’t have a clearly defined game, and you don’t have symmetric information.  And the cost of getting it wrong can be incredibly high.”

That cost – for Ukraine and for Russia, not to mention the rest of the world — is growing by the day.  It appears that Putin doesn’t care, even as his armies bomb maternity centers and evacuation routes.

Killing innocent civilians doesn’t bother the Russian dictator, just as was the case with Hitler in Germany. 

My hope is that the cost for Putin, at some point, will outweigh the supposed “benefits.”

And, with credit to the Washington Post, I close with this last paragraph:

“President Biden has been consistent throughout the Ukraine crisis on three rules of American engagement:  The United States will impose devastating sanctions on Russia if it invades Ukraine.  It will make sure Ukraine has weapons to defend against an invading Russian force.  And it will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”

Good for the president to find the best answers, not the magic ones, which don’t exist.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have never been to Ukraine in person.

But, I feel as if I am there every day as I read stories about the terrible war.

Started by the immoral Vladimir Putin, what is happening in Ukraine is tearing apart that country, as well as Russia itself.  The West may be more united than ever as it faces the Putin challenge, but there will be price to pay for the West, as well.

For my part, I read the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Atlantic Magazine every day in an effort to make sense of what I cannot see in person. 

I also try to avoid drowning in information, for, as one citizen far from the war, there is not much I can do about it individually, so better to get an overall perspective than too much information.

So it was that I read with interest two recent columns – one by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal and one by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post.

Here are excerpts from each.

FROM PEGGY NOONAN:  Under this headline – “The World, Moved, Needs to Move Cautiously in Ukraine; We admire Zelensky and want to help his country. But escalation poses threats far beyond its borders” – here is what Noonan wrote.

“It is good to be moved.  It feels good to admire without ambivalence.  The West is united, suddenly and surprisingly, and that feels good too.

“Volodymyr Zelensky stirred the world not only by what he said but what he did.  He has put it all on the line, including his life.  Early on he told the press the intelligence services had informed him he is Russian target No. 1, his wife and two children target No. 2, but they’re staying, they won’t leave.

“It is reminiscent of the summer of 1940 and London bracing for the blitz. Prime Minister Winston Churchill asked if the children of the British royal family, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, shouldn’t be sent to safety overseas.  This was the answer of Queen Elizabeth, wife of King George VI: ‘The children could not go without me, I could not possibly leave the king, and the king would never go.’  So they stayed. Princess Elizabeth has been queen now for 70 years.

“The West must try with everything it has to end this.  Cease-fires, talks, negotiations that become serious, possible compromises, efforts at ‘deconfliction’—every attempt has to be made and made again.  That’s what diplomats exist to do, find a way out when history turns hard.

“We must do what we can without sparks flying, and Lord knows we should be talking to Russia about Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors.  It’s not only a matter of ‘don’t hit them,’ it is that human beings have to work there to keep them safely operating—showing up each day during a war, sustaining their professionalism, not being unnerved and making mistakes while they’re being shelled.

“The West must feel what it feels and not compromise our judgment.”

FROM KATHLEEN PARKER:  Under this headline – “Why Russia won’t soon recover from Putin’s Ukraine blunder” – here is what Parker wrote.

“I can’t stand it.  Nobody can stand it.  We’re dead.

“These were Nina Khrushcheva’s first words when I called to ask how she was faring as Russia’s war on Ukraine escalates and civilian death tolls rise.

“A friend of several years, Khrushcheva has taught me much about the country she loves and the leader she loathes — Vladimir Putin.  An author and professor at the New School in New York with dual U.S.-Russian citizenship, she’s the great-granddaughter of former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.

“She’s stressed out, just as are more than 80 per cent of Americans recently polled by the American Psychological Association.  While most Americans cite the cumulative effects of inflation, the two-year-old pandemic and a European war with no end in sight, Khrushcheva’s demons are more personal and specific to Putin.

“’How could a country that defeated the Nazis do this?’ she asks.

“Khrushcheva also finds Putin’s actions out of character.

“I kept arguing that the invasion of Ukraine couldn’t happen because, if you deconstruct Putin, he doesn’t do crazy, big things, she says.  He does small stuff — Crimea, Belarus.  Invading Ukraine was entirely out of the Putin-judo-master-KGB character.

“Americans have wondered what could explain Putin’s error in judgment. Is he ill?  Perhaps mentally ill?  French President Emmanuel Macron’s report that the Russian leader didn’t seem himself during a phone conversation just before the invasion gained traction because it seemed plausible when nothing else did.

“Putin the Monster will join not the greats but the murderers in Russia’s history.

“In his pursuit of a nationalistic, patriotic, moral Russia with himself as czar, Putin has put his country in reverse.  Economic sanctions might be the least of what he has wrought.  People including Khrushcheva are equally concerned about social sanctions, manifested in the loss of identity, society, and culture.

“’As a country, Russia is ruined for decades to come,’ she says. ‘The whole world is behind Ukraine.  The rest of the world will never, ever be normal with us.  Not even a handshake.’”

So, what do I surmise in all of this – if anything?

Well, my answer is the same as it has been for a couple weeks now.  It is that Putin is a criminal, more in line with Adolph Hitler than anyone else, so he should be repudiated and vilified, not made into some kind of weird hero.

What he has done in Ukraine is reprehensible.  So is what he has done to his own country.

The West, led forcefully by U.S. President Joe Biden (by the way, I continue to be glad that he is in the White House instead of his predecessor), must work to find the best answers in the current conflict. 

Not the magic answers, for there are reverse spins to every potential action.  And there is no magic.  The best answers.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

No big news to hear that life contains highs and lows.

So, for me, there have been both lately.

ONE LOW:  I have been absorbing a lot of information lately about a new malady – vertigo.

I have no idea where I’d be without the Internet.  I was struck again about how simple it is to obtain information these days.  A couple of key strokes and you’re there.

Twenty years ago, I would have checked our set of encyclopedias.  Today, I use “google” – and I’m sure that makes the company, Google, happy.

The other night I experienced something that apparently happens to about 40 per cent of the country’s population at some point in their lives — vertigo.

For me, it was startling to have the room spinning out of control for almost 20 seconds.  I wasn’t counting.  I am estimating.

Here’s the definition of the term:  “Vertigo is a sensation of feeling off balance.  If you have these dizzy spells, you might feel like you are spinning or that the world around you is spinning.  Vertigo is often caused by an inner ear problem.”

Further, vertigo is often triggered by a change in the position of your head.  People with vertigo typically describe it as feeling like they are spinning, tilting, swaying, unbalanced, pulled in one direction, feeling nauseated, or vomiting.

My next step is to get professional help for the condition.

ONE HIGH:  Speaking of professional help, here is the California desert, I was able to obtain appointments quickly with medical practitioners despite what I had heard, which is that wait time for appointments could be very long.

But I booked an appointment quickly with a primary care doctor, now “my primary care doctor” here in California.

Same with a physical therapist.

Why the latter?

It has been interesting to note that one suggested treatment for vertigo, both from my physician and in on-line information, was advice I never would have predicted – physical therapy.

The treatment is called “vestibular rehabilitation,”a type of therapy aimed at helping strengthen the vestibular system.  The function of the vestibular system is to send signals to the brain about head and body movements relative to gravity, so a therapist aims to change that system.

I have not had physical therapy yet, but have booked an appointment for Wednesday, March 16.  I also was told it would be one appointment, not a series, which is good in that the treatment is not like what happens in some cases – an ongoing and expensive series.

Hope this works – so my friends will know that, when I act out-of-balance, it is because of vertigo, not my normal self.

ANOTHER HIGH:  Perhaps it’s inaccurate to term this a “high.”  But I noted a column in the Washington Post this morning which cited polling statistics indicating growing support for President Joe Biden.

One reason is how he is handling the Ukraine crisis, which requires a deft touch.  Just imagine if Donald Trump was in the Oval Office.  No deft touch.  We’d have to listen to him fawning over Vladimir Putin, even as Putin wreaks havoc in Ukraine.

In a column on the perception that Biden’s ratings are improving, Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin included this paragraph:

“Since President Biden took office, Republicans dedicated to his failure and the obstruction of virtually all his initiatives have hypocritically criticized his failure to achieve ‘unity.’”

This illustrates an unfortunate growing reality of politics these days.  It is the trait of those not in charge to win plaudits by opposing those in charge, then criticizing them for failing to achieve bi-partisanship or unity.

It’s one of the reasons I am glad to be out of politics as a lobbyist these days. 

And, is this a real “high” in the spirit of this blog?  I say yes! 

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

To state the obvious, it is hard for Americans like me to understand the reasons why Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine.

What is he trying to achieve?  Does what has happened so far – courageous actions by Ukraine citizens to fight Russian invaders – give him second thoughts?

As I said, who knows?

But I have been continuing to read the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Atlantic Magazine in an effort to understand more than I know on my own sitting in seat of relative luxury in La Quinta, California.

I do this trying to achieve the following balance:

• Reading enough to get at least a superficial picture of what is going on.

• Avoiding a tendency to drown in information because I do not have enough time in a day to read everything, with all due respect to the quality reporters who write stories.  Plus, as one American, there is not much I can do about this war other than to pray for its end.

“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reputation as a calculating and savvy strongman is collapsing as his war on Ukraine enters its third week.

“Whatever drove Putin’s decision to launch an invasion in the first place—be it nostalgia for the Soviet Union, fear of encroaching democracy, too much pandemic isolation, or a mix of all three—the campaign has already come at a devastating price.

“More than 2 million Ukrainians have fled their homes, and, according to the United Nations, hundreds of civilians have been killed.  Russia’s economy, meanwhile, is bending under the weight of sanctions.

“The crisis that Putin set off has arguably revealed his true nature, and the image that’s emerging is not exactly one of a cool-headed, geopolitical mastermind.

• Sergei Dobrynin, a Russian reporter who once thought that “Putin’s cunning was undeniable,” now sees him as immoral and irrational:“It was painfully obvious that a war would be catastrophic. I told myself, Putin is evil.  But he is not an idiot.  That’s what I kept telling myself right up until the night of February 24.”
• He’s creating the NATO he feared. “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has primarily succeeded in materializing his worst fears: A unified West, a more militarized Europe, and a stronger, more attractive NATO.”
• And yes, he’s been canceled—deservedly so.  “When a Russian spymaster complains about his country’s cancellation, our response should not be to laugh at an idiot confusing a culture war and a real one.  Instead, we should recognize that economic and social isolation is a powerful weapon, and resolve to use it with the same restraint as any other weapon.”

Plus, this savvy analysis from the Wall Street Journal:

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic blunders.  The first came on November 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  The pact made it likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO—an intolerable prospect for  Putin.

“The second strategic error was Putin’s underestimation of his rivals. He despises the West and what he sees as Western decadence.  He had come to believe that the West was a shambles, both politically and culturally.  He also thought that the leaders of the West were of poor quality, and inexperienced, in comparison with himself.  After all, he’s been in power 20 years.”

So, the image that keeps coming back to me is the comparison between Adolph Hitler and Putin.  It appeared both wanted to restore “their country” to what they define as past glory.

Hitler didn’t care how many lives were lost in the process (not to mention the Jews whom he wanted to decimate) and, today.  Putin doesn’t care either.  Even in regard to his own Russian people, not to mention Ukrainians.

Back to this blog headline:  As a description of Putin, I vote for mad.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have been thinking again about “words that matter,” perhaps because I have almost nothing else to do than this and golf while I sojourn for the winter in the California desert.

Here are three words that matter to me:

1.  Helm:  This word is a noun, but it is increasingly used as a verb.  As in a sentence like:  He helmed the meeting.

Sounds stupid to me.

Think of a better verb than helm, which is not a verb.  Try “direct, coordinate, manage,” or others.

•  Incent:  This is a far better verb than the supposed word “incentivize.” 

I always have disliked “ize” or “yze” words.  They sound weird and there usually is a better way.  Think of the supposed word prioritize.  Wouldn’t it be better just to say, “establish what’s most important.”

The most egregious example of the “ize-yze” problem was the time one of my partners used the word “catalyze.”

Say what?

He said the word “communicated.”  I said I had never heard the word before, so how could it “communicate.”

•  They:  This is a plural pronoun that, in some quarters, has come to be used to refer to individuals, not groups, when those inviduals don’t want to be called “he” or “she.”

I guess I understand how this has come to be a society that includes persons who don’t consider themselves to be of one gender or the other.  But, as an old person, I don’t have to like it.

For my part, I intend to continue using “he” or “she.”

Now, in general, as I have said in the past, I believe there are three kinds of people when it comes to how they understand points of view.

1.  Some people like numbers.  Not me.

•  Some people like charts, graphs, and photos.  Not me.

• Some people like words.  Me.

Of course, all of us tend to have parts of the threesome listed above, though we may have favorites such as “words” for me.

Another of my partners in business also liked words and used them well.  But he had a special ability to pare words with charts and graphs.  Far better than me.

He made the charts and graphs illustrate the importance of his words.

I often wished I had that ability.

But, I’ll stick with words.  That’s what I know best.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Here in La Quinta, California, where I am staying for the winter, I have the good fortune of playing a lot of golf.

My favorite sport.

But, I also have found time to think a few more thoughts about the game I love.

One of them was prompted by a column by one of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, editor of Links Magazine.  He suggested that one way to tame the problem of golf balls going too far – especially when hit by professionals or budding professionals — was to limit the number of clubs in the golf bag.

Better that than build ever-longer golf courses.

Peper suggested seven clubs, though he also admitted that his solution would never fly, if only because club manufacturers would not tolerate such a limit.

Still, I liked his idea, so I made a list of “my seven,” then asked a few of my friends to do the same.  When I return to my home in Salem, Oregon, this spring, I intend to schedule a “seven club mini-tournament.”

So, for any who cares, here is my seven:

1. 3-wood
2. 3-hybrid
3. 6-hybrid
4. 7-iron
5. 9-iron
6. 52-degree wedge
7. Putter

If you like golf, think of your own seven-club set.  Doing so might be influenced by the specific course where you play, or the weather, or both.  But, still, a good exercise…since it is likely that most amateurs only play about seven clubs a round, even though they may carry the maximum 14.

Now, on to two other thoughts about golf.

WHAT’S THE FAVORITE GOLF CLUB IN YOUR BAG:  The on-line version of Links Magazine asked this question of its readers.  Two responses:

• Always been my 7-iron.  I can’t explain why it’s always my easiest club to hit.  Always called it my “tweener” club.

• 7-iron from 150 yards out to around the green in the deeper grass just outside the first cut…that club is usually the first one I need re-gripped.

My answer is the same – and it will not be a surprising choice for those who play golf with me. 

Contrary to pro golfers – yes, I am not one, not even close – I often use a 7-iron around the green in an attempt to get the ball rolling along the green toward the hole.  My son, a much better golfer than I am, would use a wedge for the same shot – and his result usually would be better than mine.

I began using a 7-iron when I had the privilege of playing golf in Scotland on five occasions.  There, in links-style golf, you want to get the ball rolling along the hard ground quickly, so a 7-iron is often the best choice – whether from greenside or 150 yards out.

WHAT YOUR BRAIN SAYS ABOUT YOUR NEXT SHOT:  I attribute the quote below to acknowledged golf psychologist, Bob Rotella.  In his book, “Golf Is Not a Game of Perfect,” he writes this:

“The brain tries to be an accommodating mechanism.  It will try to send the ball in the direction of the last thing you look at or think about.  If your last thought before striking the ball is, ‘don’t hit it in the pond,’ the brain is likely to react by telling your muscles to hit it in the pond.”

Most golfers would say Rotella is right.  I would.  Your mind does funny things on a golf course.

When I am thinking clearly as I address the golf ball, I try to take one last look in the distance and focus on a target.  Such as a tree.  Then, with that image in mind, I hope my golf ball goes in that direction.

Does it work?  Sometimes.

But, when it doesn’t, the reason usually is that some other thought has intruded.  Such as, “don’t hit in the water,” or “watch out for that bunker.”

If Rotella has a moment of free time, I’d like to set an appointment with him.

This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Lawmakers scurried out of Salem on Friday to end their one month, even-numbered year session at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon.

As a state government manager and state lobbyist who labored at the Capitol for more than 40 years, several things seem to be true this time around:

• Legislators got out of town on time.  On the basis of a two-year limit on the days to be in session, legislators made it out on time.  They had to be done by March 7; they were done by March 4.

• Legislators had a lot of money to spend in contrast to some past sessions when they were cutting budgets.

• About 130 bills were heading toward Governor Kate Brown for her signature and most observers said there were none she planned to veto.

• Among controversy topics lawmakers passed:  Agreed that farmworkers should earn overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week this year; voted to keep the Elliott State Forest in public hands as a place to research forest management; approved preventing police officers from stopping motorists for some minor infractions; decided against allowing statewide self-service gas pumps; passed on an opportunity to put caps on contributions to political campaigns; and gave up on an effort to clear the convictions of people found guilty by non-unanimous jury votes, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has found that system unconstitutional. 

• At the same time, it appeared legislators avoided too much political friction, at least anything that was apparent from the outside, which could have included, but did not, walk-outs to stop action.

In many ways, one of the most significant aspect of this session:  Key departures

For one, Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, presided over his last legislative session in the top job.  [There might be a short floor session later this year to consider appointments to State Board and Commissions, but in terms of legislative policy leadership, Courtney is done.  He is the longest-serving Senate President, having had the job since 2003.]

Second, Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, resigned before the session to run for governor, so her absence was noted, especially because of the way, even though a Democrat, she worked the middle at the Capitol.  That trait could help make a credible run for governor next fall.

Third, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, also resigned before the session to run governor and, in the general election, voters could see both Kotek and Johnson running for the state’s top executive level job. 

Fourth, Democrat Governor Kate Brown has nine more months in the job, but no one knows yet whether she will serve out all the remaining months of her final term.  Rumors continue to circulate that she could take a job in the Biden Administration.

With the departures, the Legislature is in for new leadership.  Representative Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, appears to have solidified his hole on the House Speaker position.

No one knows who for sure will seek to replace Courtney in the Senate, though one likely leading candidate could be Senator Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, who appears to have performed well as Senate Majority Leader.

And, of course, there will be a new governor in office starting in 2023.  Former Speaker Kotek is the leading Democrat candidate.  Former House Former House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, D-Canby, has been raising money strongly, so could be the leading Republican in the spring primary.

But, also don’t sell former senator Johnson short.  She could be the first independent candidate to ascend to the Governor’s Office.