IDEAS TO IMPROVE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TO MAKE THEM REAL, NOT LIKE PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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, 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 wrote the other day about the stupidity of current presidential debates, which are about everything other than substance.

They look and feel more like professional wrestling than real and reasoned discussions of pressing public policy issues – issues every voter faces as the future of the U.S. as we know it is at stake.

Before my earlier post, I wish I would have had a chance to read a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal from a writer in Salisbury, Connecticut.

It was just published yesterday, but it makes several very good points, such as:

• “Take the debates away from the networks—they have too little substance, too much focus on au courant frivolousness such as tweet insults and too much time spent on attempting ‘got-chas.’
• “Give running the debates back to the League of Women Voters, or anyone disinterested in network ratings.
• “Get rid of the studio audiences. Please. This is serious political discourse, not professional wrestling. While you’re at it, dump the ‘pre-game’ show. This isn’t a spectacle and it isn’t about the networks or whatever ‘expert’ talking heads they can bring in to pre-analyze.
• “Keep each debate to a narrower subject or range of subjects, so there is enough time to properly answer a question. A minute and 15 seconds guarantees nothing other than a pre-packaged bumper sticker or, just as likely, for a candidate to answer a different question than what was asked.
• “The hardest, and perhaps one of the more difficult improvements, would be to ask the press and related pundits to pledge to shut down their Twitter feeds while watching the debate, and perhaps also pledge to write their post-debate reviews before reading any ‘trending’ write-ups.
• “Concurrent Twitter tends to enforce herd instinct as the press piles on and focuses on what’s hot on Twitter, often while competing to show they’re up on some sidetrack. Too much is driven by the Twitter mob as it is. We certainly can do better.”

Great improvements!

Too much is at stake in this country to allow the current form of so-called “presidential debates” to continue because, for one thing, they only will fit the conduct of the reality show host currently acting as president, and, for another, will allow Democrat challengers to get off without explaining their proposals in sufficient detail.

URBAN-RURAL DIVIDE IN OREGON SHOWS NO SIGNS OF WEAKENING

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

Elected Republicans in Salem have walked away – again — from their jobs at the Capitol, but they contend it is the only way to protect their rural Oregon constituents.

What they are doing is legal and Democrats have done it before.

The goal now, Republicans say, is to stop the so-called “cap and trade” climate change bill they believe will wreak havoc in rural Oregon, meaning job losses and higher costs at the gas pump.

So, is there anything more basic behind the current set-to at the Capitol?

Yes. It’s the urban-rural divide.

There really are “two Oregons.”

One:  Urban areas, including Portland, the tri-county area around Portland, Eugene, parts of Medford and, according to new statistics, Bend, which now houses more Democrats than Republicans. And, the Democrats have been elected in nearly all of those areas.

Two:  Rural areas, which is every other part of Oregon, especially Eastern Oregon. There, Republicans have been elected in nearly all of those areas.

Never the twain shall meet.

Here is the way my former colleagues at my lobbying firm, now called CFM Advocates, described the current tension.

“Republican lawmakers say Democrats ‘rigged’ the legislative process to advance Senate Bill 1530 (the cap-and-trade bill) by rejecting every GOP amendment, blocking a move to refer the measure to voters, and failing to provide a comprehensive fiscal and revenue analysis.

“’We will not be party to a legislative process that ignores minority voices, rejects opportunities for consensus and rushes bills through without key information from our nonpartisan policy staff,’ House GOP Leader Christine Drazan wrote in an op-ed published by The Oregonian newspaper.

“’Walking out on the job is a dereliction of duty,’ Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick said. ‘Serving in the legislature is a great honor. Walking out on the job is dishonorable and disrespectful. I am disappointed in the Senate Republicans for taking this irresponsible action.’

“Governor Kate Brown also scolded Republicans, calling the walkout a ‘taxpayer-funded vacation.’”

Further, to illustrate the gravity of the tension, officials in several Eastern Oregon Counties have announced that want to leave Oregon and become part of Idaho. The idea has been christened “Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho Movement.”

“It’s a movement to try to maintain our rural values,” says spokesman Mike McCarter, a 73-year-old retired nurseryman and firearms instructor from La Pine in Central Oregon.

“We’re afraid of what’s coming down legislatively. It’ll destroy rural Oregon.”

Seceding from one state and joining another is a high bar, one reason says won’t be cleared.  But, still, the fact that the move is being discussed on the record shows the depth of rural angst.]

Here’s what Senate GOP Leader Herman Baertchiger says about the idea. “Oregon is largely controlled by one party that does not represent the entire state effectively, making the urban and rural divide striking. Democrats should be paying attention to how unhappy these Oregonians are with the current regime to seek secession from Oregon.”

No one appears to know what will be necessary to resolve the “two Oregons” issue, which has persisted for years. Perhaps some kind of political statesmanship would be required, but it is in short supply these days in Oregon.

And that failure applies to all sides.

“WALKING-OUT” TACTIC PROMPTS COMPETING VIEWS

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

In many ways, it’s a sad commentary on politics in Oregon when many readers will know exactly the meaning in the headline of this blog.

It’s a question related to a tactic being employed by Republicans at the Capitol during the current “short legislative session.”

They say rural Oregon cannot tolerate what is called a “cap and trade” bill which aims to put climate change provisions into Oregon law.

Proponents say it’s needed in the face of federal inaction on climate change, which is already affecting the state.  Opponents say it would do little to solve climate change while increasing costs for consumers across the state and particularly damaging Oregon’s rural economy.

So, Republicans have “walked out” to deny legislative leaders a quorum to conduct business in the Senate and House chambers.

The tactic has employed for years by both Republicans and Democrats when one or the other couldn’t tolerate outcomes proposed by those in charge in Salem.

In the last long legislative session, it was the Senate Rs who walked over cap-and-trade.  Now, they have done so again and their colleagues in the House have joined the protest.

One risk for the Rs is that state financial allocations they favor could fall into the dust bin, the main one of which is a proposal by Governor Kate Brown to fund flood relief efforts in Eastern Oregon.

There are two competing views about walk-outs.

Republicans say cap-and-trade is so onerous for rural Oregon that there is no choice but to kill it in any way they can.  They also say the in-charge Democrats have turned a deaf ear to proposals from Republicans to amend the bill.

One tactic that enraged Republicans occurred the other day when Senate President Peter Courtney went into a Joint Ways and Means Committee, appointed himself temporarily to the committee, and provided the final vote to send the bill to the Senate floor.  What Courtney did was legal under Senate rules, but the action didn’t go down well with the Rs.

“Senator Courtney’s actions leave no other option for Senate Republicans but to boycott and deny quorum because cap and trade is on the way to the Senate floor,” said Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger.  “Democrats refused to work with Republicans and denied every amendment that was presented.  Pay attention Oregon – this is a true example of partisan politics.”

On the other side, Democrat leaders say legislators have an obligation to show up for work to do the public’s business rather than, as one Democrat put it, “take a vacation on the public’s dime.”  The comment was a reference to the fact the Rs had to go out of state to avoid being rounded up by the State Police if the cops had been dispatched to bring them back to Salem – which, by the way, has not occurred so far.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, issued a statement saying, “Walking out on the job is a dereliction of duty” and also describing Republicans’ boycott as “dishonorable and disrespectful.”

From my post in the cheap seats, it strikes me that there is a relatively easy solution here.

It is to send the cap-and-trade bill out to a vote of the people and count on urban voters in Portland, Eugene, Medford and, even, Bend to pass the bill over the likely objections of rural Oregonians.  As various statewide political races have shown, Democrat have more votes than Republicans and, thus, are able to control many outcomes at the polls.

Then, with such a compromise in place (no, compromise is not a dirty word), Republicans could return to the Capitol and vote to make the final decisions on the remaining issues that should be handled as “emergencies” in a short legislative session.

As one example, flood recovery money for Eastern Oregon would be approved.

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TELL US ALMOST NOTHING — OTHER THAN A COMPARISON TO PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

The presidential debates – the only ones live now are among the Democrats bidding for the right to oppose Donald Trump – tell us almost nothing about who would make the best U.S. president.

The eighth one in the dispiriting series for Democrats was up last night.  You can guess that the winner was Donald Trump because the remaining Ds focused on tearing each other down, not building each other up.

Here in the way veteran Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz analyzed the debate:

“The tone of the debate ultimately became a metaphor for the Democrat race itself, as it was marred repeatedly by candidates interrupting one another, talking over each other and constantly ignoring the moderators’ efforts to bring some order to the unruly evening.  The event did little to raise the confidence level of the Democrat voters who will be selecting a nominee to go up against President Trump.

“For Trump, this was one more debate that served his purposes.  A divided Democrat Party and a nomination battle that often seems to do as much to diminish the candidates as to elevate them is what he enjoys seeing.”

Or this, from another Post writer, Dana Milbank, who used the professional wrestling analogy:

“Within the first few minutes, the CBS News moderators lost control. Candidates shouted at each other, talked over the moderators and interrupted at will. ‘He spoke over time, and I’m going to talk!’ bellowed Biden. The audience cheered and booed as if watching professional wrestling.”

That’s what politics has become today, at least on the national scene as all of those bidding — supposedly – to represent us actually represent either themselves or a political party.

In words, that appeared before the debate, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson decried the “destruction of political institutions before our eyes.”

“From one perspective, this has come in a swift, confusing rush of events. From another, it has seemed to unfold in slow motion. Everyone sees the vase falling toward the ground, but no one seems capable of stopping the impact. And that is what a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders presidential contest would be:  The shattering of our two-party political system.

“One of the parties — which I used to call my own — has already been captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals promised a revolution against an out-of-touch elite. They succeeded, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They have devalued governing skill and compromise. They have elevated potent cultural symbols that unite and motivate their own — such as the fight against an imaginary “deep state” — rather than seeking to unite and inspire the country.

“And now the other party — as though by some horrible compulsion for imitation — is being captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals are succeeding, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They devalue governing skill and compromise. They employ potent cultural symbols — such as the demand for “revolution” and the demonization of moderation — to unite and motivate their own tribe rather than seeking to unite the country.”

So, we trundle on with more debates, which really are not debates.  They are simply platforms for more diatribe and “got-cha” quotes.  I am waiting, probably fruitlessly, for debates that focus on real issues – health care quality and access, infrastructure planning, environmental regulation, etc.

For my part, I did not watch the debate last night, preferring to make my own decisions about the presidential race, unencumbered by the contrived “debate.”

DESTROYING POLITICS

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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 have said before that one of the best columnists writing today is Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.  Gerson’s work appears in the Washington Post.

Rather than write my own stuff today, I choose to publish Gerson’s most recent piece, which does an excellent job of skewering both the Ds and the Rs in the current presidential election.

Neither side, he says, has the best interests of the country at heart and hand.  They just want to advance their own causes, which ought to repel smart voters who want good government.  Unfortunately, being repelled by bad politics is not in vogue.

So, without further ado, here is Gerson.

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

A Trump-Sanders election would destroy our politics

It is a sad, strange experience to witness the destruction of American political institutions right before your eyes. From one perspective, this has come in a swift, confusing rush of events. From another, it has seemed to unfold in slow motion. Everyone sees the vase falling toward the ground, but no one seems capable of stopping the impact. And that is what a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders presidential contest would be:  The shattering of our two-party political system.

One of the parties — which I used to call my own — has already been captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals promised a revolution against an out-of-touch elite. They succeeded, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They have devalued governing skill and compromise. They have elevated potent cultural symbols that unite and motivate their own — such as the fight against an imaginary “deep state” — rather than seeking to unite and inspire the country.

And now the other party — as though by some horrible compulsion for imitation — is being captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals are succeeding, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They devalue governing skill and compromise. They employ potent cultural symbols — such as the demand for “revolution” and the demonization of moderation — to unite and motivate their own tribe rather than seeking to unite the country.

The two sides are not morally equivalent. Only one is subverting our constitutional order on a daily basis. Only one leader is regularly fanning flames of racial division. Only one leader has separated migrant families and abused migrant children. Only one leader has authoritarian pretensions and regularly uses his office to facilitate corruption.

But Trump and Sanders practice a similar type of politics, described with typical brilliance in Yuval Levin’s new book, “A Time to Build.” Levin argues that political institutions — say, the presidency or Congress — were once seen as formative institutions. People within them were expected to uphold certain standards and develop certain skills. Politicians wanted to be recognized for excelling at the profession of politics, which includes mastering detail, building consensus and cooperating in spite of differences.

Politicians such as Trump and Sanders, however, want to be seen as outsiders overturning a discredited establishment. Trump, for example, has continued to criticize elements of his own administration on Twitter as though he were an outside observer. In this political approach, the purpose of institutions has shifted. “We have moved, roughly speaking,” writes Levin, “from thinking of institutions as molds that shape people’s characters and habits toward seeing them as platforms that allow people to be themselves and to display themselves before a wider world.” Political institutions are no longer seen as “formative” but as “performative.”

Trump may be the champion of performative politics, but some leaders of the left, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sanders, are contesting the title. For all of them, public office is not so much a place to serve and achieve but a means to raise the profile of their activism. For all of them, the act of being viral matters more than the craft and discipline of passing laws or ensuring their proper administration.

It wasn’t that long ago that a progressive leader such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy aspired to be a master legislator and was perfectly willing to make reasonable compromises on education reform or immigration reform to secure incremental progress. Or when President George W. Bush proposed and got passed the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief with the strong support of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then-Sen. Joe Biden.

Who, in this age of the outsider, would now run for president on a platform of reasonable compromise and bipartisan purpose? (Well, actually, Biden initially did. And many in his party reviled him for it.)

But what if the greatest need of the republic is not for an outsider to shake things up but an insider to get things done on education reform, and immigration reform, and global health? What if the type of leadership we need most does not pursue virality as an end, or signal cultural loyalties as a tactic, but rather elevates prudence, professionalism and idealism rooted in achievement? What if we need politicians who know their jobs and a president who brings honor to his office and healing to a weary country?

The realization comes like a nightmare: Maybe there is no longer a democratic constituency for the talents and virtues that make democracy work.

CHARACTER VS. POLICY IN POLITICS: I WANT BOTH

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

Here is the question:

Does character trump policy?

Or, does policy trump character?

Forgive the play on words here with the use of the word “trump,” but the current president is almost a classic example of the tension between someone’s character and what they do in a political position – or at least what they say they do.

One of my friends put the question this way:  If a president had solid character, but implements dumb policy, would you still vote for solid character?

Good question.

The easy answer is that I want a president with solid character who handles the duties of the presidential office with aplomb, zeal and honesty, even if I might disagree from time to time with the policy.  If the president supports and implements policies with which I disagree, so be it, because no one president will ever do what exactly I want – nor should that president.

Put differently, I want both character and sound policy.

And, I think, as Americans, we deserve both.

But, at least with solid character, I would know that a president was telling the truth about policies, not making things up as he or she went along.

We are reaching a point in our national existence when we are dominated by rage and resentment, at least in politics, if not in society in at large.  For one thing, the current president, emboldened by the U.S. Senate decision not to convict him in the impeachment process, is retaliating against those who oppose him.

For another, those on the left behave in the same way, eschewing respect and decency for, again, rage and resentment.

I say it’s time to return to politics that meant something – the ability to disagree agreeably.  The same should be true of society in general.

 

 

CHEATING IN THE “NATIONAL PASTIME” AND IN POLITICS

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

Truth be told, I am a baseball fan only at certain times of the year, especially as the World Series draws closer.

So, I do not have much credibility to comment on the scandal engulfing the Houston Astros who have admitted to a systematic approach to cheat to win games, including the World Series.

But I did appreciate reading a quote from one of the best sports writers going these days, Rick Reilly.  Here is what he wrote for The Atlantic:

“Like a pilot in a blizzard, America is flying upside down right now. We have a president who lies with every other breath and then demonizes anyone who tells the truth.  We have senators who swear on the Bible and then run a trial without a single witness.  And now we have a national pastime that knows the Astros robbed Fort Knox and let them keep the gold anyway.”

Not much more needs to be said about a Reilly quote that does a great job of comparing the state of national politics today to the state of baseball today.  Both have been indelibly marked by cheating.

So, now we’re supposed to root again for the Astros as the baseball season begins and when they might be cheating again.  And, were supposed to vote in the next presidential election, which already has been rigged in favor of the incumbent and will be rigged again before next November.

Right!

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF “JUST SAYING” IS NOW OPEN

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

This is one of three departments I run – the others being the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering and the Department of Pet Peeves.

The Department of Just Saying exists, mostly, to house issues that don’t fit in the other two.

ISSUE  #1:  News is emerging this week that President Donald Trump – yes, he is still president, though he often acts more like a dictator – has assigned his director of White House personnel to find and fire federal agency employees who are not sufficiently loyal to Trump.

A story in the Washington Post appeared under this headline:

Trump embarks on expansive search for disloyalty as administration-wide purge escalates

The action comes, of course, after Trump feels emboldened by not being convicted in the impeachment process, so is out to get his detractors, an effort which has been labeled a “purge.”

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING That, having worked for a governor in Oregon, I understand the instinct to name high-level state government who are loyal.  But the word “loyalty” should be defined.

Governor Vic Atiyeh, for whom I worked, felt loyalty was best described as meeting two objectives:  (1) working hard and well for the Administration, and (2) feeling free to question policies when there was a clear need for such questions.

In the Departments of Human Resources, Economic Development and Executive (where I worked), I remember a number of occasions when I and others pushed back on something the governor wanted to do.  He listened and, while he may not have changed his mind or his approach, the critical fact was this – he listened and did not mount a purge to find only yes-men or yes-women.

I wish Trump had the same, smart, confident ability.

ISSUE #2:   Here is what Trump said about case involving a Trump Roger Stone who was convicted of lying to authorities.

“They say he lied. But other people lied too,” Trump said, before naming former FBI officials. “You don’t know who these people are, just trust me, they all lied,” he said, to laughter from the audience.

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING THAT, when it comes to lying, Trump knows what he is talking about.

The Washington Post Fact Checker column has counted more than 15,000 lies Trump has told since he took office.

ISSUE #3:  Rahm Emanuel, former mayor of Chicago, among other government jobs, recently opined about problems with all those running for federal office.

“The central reason (for the problems), he said, “underpins a reality framing the race.  State and local government today get things done, while Washington so frequently falls short.”

Emanuel cited these other examples:

• Recall that Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer won office on the strength of a simple slogan: ‘Just fix the damn roads.’
• An ad by Joe Biden inadvertently highlighted Pete Buttigieg’s core appeal—his record of driving change at the local level can be applied to the nation as a whole.
• Mike Bloomberg comes with an impressive “get it done” record as mayor. If he can brandish those accomplishments on the campaign trail (and actually prepare for debates – after falling on his face in the first one), he could be a contender. The jury is still out on that question.
• Senator Bernie Sanders is an anomaly. As someone who’s running for the Democrat nomination without even being a Democrat, he presents himself as an outsider.  But as Biden has pointed out, Sanders has been making the same argument about profit-seeking corporations and greedy executives for decades.  It’s pretty hard to maintain a legitimate claim on the “change agent” persona when your most memorable line in the campaign is “I wrote the damn bill!”

COMMENT:  JUST SAYING THAT, the ability for government to work well – at the local, regional, state or federal levels – ought to be a calling card for those running.

RANDOM THOUGHTS ABOUT GOLF WHILE IN THE CALIFORNIA DESERT

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

First, this admission.

I am down here in La Quinta, California, for part of the winter, with nothing much else to do than play golf or think about golf – except when I allow myself to be diverted into politics.

The preamble to this blog makes the point, I guess, about two of my interests – golf and politics.  This time, I’ll stay away from politics.

So, it was that today, between golf rounds on the course, I came up with these thoughts about golf:

SLOW PLAY:  This is one of the main problems with professional golf and the problem is that, as young players see the pros, they mimic the slow pace.  The worst is J.B. Holmes who, incredibly, plumb-bobs three-foot putts.  When he plays, I turn off the TV.  Mercifully, he is not in the field this week.

Based on what happened last year in a European Tour event, I think there is a solution to the slow play problem.  It is to put a shot clock on a golf cart and have that cart follow along with each group of players.  When a player gets to his or her golf ball, turn the clock on.  Give the player 40 seconds to hit his or her shot.

If they exceed the time, give them, first, a warning.  Then, if there is a second violation, dole out a one-stroke penalty – and proceed from there, with a disqualification with, say, three bad times.

It wouldn’t take long for slow play to end in response to the monitoring, warning and penalties.

COLLEGE GOLF IN THE DESERT:  I had the good fortune to attend the Prestige College Golf Tournament at the PGA West Greg Norman golf course this week.

There were 16 teams there from around the country in an event that, after three 18-hole rounds, was won by one of the best teams in the country, the University of Texas.  [Others in the field were Arkansas, Stanford, LSU, University of California/Davis, UCLA, Wyoming, Northwestern, Oklahoma State and Pepperdine.}

Oregon State University was there, too, and played well as a team for the first two days, then fell back a bit on the last day.

I watched the Beavers’ best player, Spencer Tibbets, whom I knew as he came through Oregon Golf Association junior tournaments to succeed well enough to earn a scholarship to OSU.  One of Spencer’s claims to fame occurred last year when he qualified for the U.S. Open and, even as an amateur, missed making the cut by only one stroke.

Regarding the slow play issue, one tactic employed in the college tournament was that, as the first two players in a foursome finished a hole, they walked off to the next tee.  Then, the last two players completed the hole.  Made for a better pace of play because the two who left could tee off quickly on the next hole.

This could have struck some observers as violating golf etiquette because the normal process is for all golfers in a group to remain on the green until everyone has completed the hole.  This time, the need for quickness prevailed.

PLAYING GOLF WITH MY SON AT THE PALMS:  Speaking of good fortune, I was able to play 18 holes with my son, Eric, earlier this week at The Palms where both of us are privileged to be members.

For my part, I would rather watch him play than play myself.  I remember the first time he beat me.  He was 12 years old.  That irritated me.  But, from then on, every time I have played with him or watched him play, I am very proud of him.

As I like to say, I taught Eric all I know about golf – and then he turned five years old!

LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING BACK TO MY FAVORITE GOLF COURSE IN THE WORLD, ILLAHE HILLS:  Now, as I write this, I ‘ll be back home in Salem for the month of March.  So, when I return, one of the first things I’ll do is play Illahe Hills, my favorite course in the world.

THE DEPARTMENT OF GOOD QUOTES WORTH REMEMBERING IS OPEN AGAIN

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

The Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.  The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Just Saying.

From columnist E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:  ‘Trump as ‘the chief law enforcement officer’ is akin to putting the Houston Astros in charge of policing cheating in Major League Baseball.

“It should worry Democrats that as the dangers posed by four more years of Trump (and two more years of a supine GOP Senate) become clearer, their presidential race may be coming down to a choice between a billionaire and a democratic socialist. ’Tis the final conflict, as The Internationale, the old anthem of the left, put it.  It’s hard to imagine a confrontation more likely to shatter the party.”

Comment:  Trump must have loved last night’s Democrat debate.  What candidates did to each other only benefits Trump who, remember, has designated himself as the “chief law enforcement officer” in the land.

More from Dionne:  “Can these Democratic candidates start competing over who is best positioned to bring together the majority of Americans who disapprove of how Trump is running things?

“Can they try to prove it by reaching out now to constituencies not part of their own natural base — and by taming the furies within their own factions?

“Can they look at the smirk on Trump’s face and realize the damage they’ll do our nation if they just pretend that this primary is like every other?”

Comment:  Dionne is not my favorite Post columnist, coming, as he usually does, from so far left.  But, this time, he raises a great point:  When will Democrat candidates start competing over who is best positioned to bring together the majority of Americans who disapprove of how Trump is running things?

From former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger in the Washington Post:  “Attorney General William Barr is under assault for what his critics decry as improper interference in the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone.  But the claim that decisions by career prosecutors should in essence be unreviewable by those appointed to leadership positions in the Justice Department is not just wrong; it is also irresponsible.  Barr wasn’t intervening inappropriately.  He was doing his job.”

Comment:  To me, Terwilliger makes a great point.  The head of a government agency does not automatically have to accede to the actions of those under him or her.  He or she has the responsibility to make most of the final decisions.

To be sure, it would have better, in the most recent case involving AG Barr and the Stone sentencing recommendation, for the AG’s actions to come before the staff recommendation – so the final recommendation could occur without as much controversy.  But, still, Barr is the AG and, in this case, according to someone who knows and worked with him – Terwilliger — the “intervention” was entirely appropriate, no matter what sentence an independent hands down to Stone.

Call me guilty here.  I was a state government executive and, while I valued the recommendations of those who worked for me, I often had the responsibility to make the final decision.

From former Navy Secretary John Lehman in the Wall Street Journal on the National Security Council (NSC):  “Henry Kissinger grew the council to include one deputy, 32 policy professionals and 60 administrators. By my count, alumni of his NSC include two secretaries of state, four national security advisers, a director of national intelligence, a secretary of the Navy, and numerous high-ranking officials in the State, Defense and Treasury departments as well as the Central Intelligence Agency.

“But the NSC has only continued to expand. By the end of the Obama administration, 34 policy professionals supported by 60 administrators had exploded to three deputies, more than 400 policy professionals and 1,300 administrators.”

Comment:  Incredible!  What started out as a small group of analysts to help the president deal with often-competing government departments has become its own department, not in name, but in fact.  What this shows is what happens with government grows too fast – and when, after being voted into existence, there is no emphasis other than on growth.