ANOTHER SOLID STEP IN VACCINE PROTECTION

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 (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.

That solid step occurred Saturday morning when my wife and I got the second Pfizer vaccine, a welcome development for us.

While there is no absolute assurance that we won’t contract the Covid-19 virus, the chances are good that we won’t.

Our experience with the second shot here in Riverside County, California, was much like the first in these ways:

• We traveled east about an hour and a half from our winter home in La Quinta, California, to the town of Morena Valley, the site of the our second vaccine.

• We arrived at part of Loma Linda Hospital where it was easy to park and enter the facility.

• Several Riverside County staff ushered into the hospital.  There was not a huge crowd, though a steady stream of people were ahead of and behind us.
  
• We spent a few minutes with a staff member who registered us on a computer, then were directed to a nurse who would give us the shots.

• She said was a “visiting nurse” from Florida who was out West for a couple months to give the vaccines.  She was very businesslike and friendly.

• Some of those who were on hand at the hospital were getting their first shots, though it was our second.

• After getting the shot, which was easy (from friends, I had about long needles and pain with the insertion), we were directed to a waiting area to spend the required 15 minutes of rest.  A poor staff member had the unfortunate duty to announce the passage of time every minute, so folks there would know what it was appropriate to leave.

• Our appointment was at 11:45 a.m., but we were done with everything and on the road back home by then.

It important to add that the vaccine site was very well run and the staff, to a person, were friendly and helpful.  That was true even though we learned they would oversee the giving of more than 12,000 vaccines on that Saturday.

There is a lot of media coverage these days of vaccination distribution that does not work well, including this item from yesterday’s Oregonian newspaper:

“The electronic system for booking COVID-19 vaccinations in the Portland area reached its boiling point this week — not only for many thousands of embittered seniors who tried unsuccessfully for hours to schedule appointments on a slow-moving and glitchy website, but for state leaders who finally took notice.

“Friday, a day after area residents made 400,000 attempts to book just 3,400 appointments, the state finally made a change in the booking system, which officials hoped would work better.”’

Unfortunately, there is not much media coverage of distribution processes that work effectively such as the two we experienced here and the one at State Fairgrounds in our official residence, Salem, Oregon.

For us, everything worked well for our first and second shots here in California, though I’m glad we didn’t have to venture farther west to Los Angeles where, no doubt, we would have encountered huge crowds.

And, so far at least, the other good news for us is that we have not had any side effects.

THE HEADLINES WERE MUTED FOR RECENT STATE OF OREGON REVENUE FORECAST, INCLUDING OVER “THE KICKER”

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 (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.

It used to be that, when a new quarterly state government revenue forecast was in the offing, the State Capitol would be filled with interested observers to hear the results.

As a state lobbyist, I was one of them on many occasions.

Earlier this week, a new revenue forecast was unveiled and it appeared to gain only scant attention from the media or the public.  And, of course in retirement, I was not there, though I did recent a few of the media stories.

One reason for the lack of attention was the pandemic, which has made the Legislature a “virtual one” and has prompted various public policy issues – like a revenue forecast — to recede into the background.

Another reason for the murky status is that state budget officials are waiting to see if President Joe Biden and Congress will produce another virus relief bill, which is likely to include at some additional state revenue.

Therefore, what has lost in the shuffle over the last few days is an issue that has been the source of aggressive political pushing and pulling over the years.  It’s called “the kicker.”

This law is controversial, especially to many Democrats who want more money for state programs.

The “kicker” law has been in place since 1979 when it was passed by the Oregon Legislature.

This limitation is applied separately to corporate income tax revenue, the sum of personal income tax revenue, and all other General Fund revenue.   Specifically, if revenues from the corporate income tax exceed their forecast by more than 2 per cent, then all revenue in excess of the forecast is refunded to corporations.  

Similarly, if revenues from all other General Fund sources exceed their forecast, the total excess is refunded to individual taxpayers.

The rationale – back in 1979 and even today — is that the money, though perhaps in state government coffers, still “belongs to taxpayers,” the people or corporations that paid taxes.  So, it should be returned to those payers..

Advocates for larger government do have points in their favor.  Rather than sending money back to payers, they want to invest it in such programs as education, health care and public safety, all of which have strong advocates.

The Oregon newspaper reported this additional information earlier this week:

“Oregon taxpayers are on track to get a ‘kicker’ tax rebate worth a combined $570.5 million next year, state economists told lawmakers in the latest quarterly forecast on Wednesday.

“That is the upshot of aggregate incomes in the state exceeding economists’ expectations well before the pandemic, as lawmakers assembled the current state budget.

“State economist Mark McMullen told lawmakers ‘this massive helicopter drop of a massive amount of federal aid’ also played a key role in raising incomes, through stimulus payments to individuals and enhanced unemployment benefits.  Absent that federal aid, Oregonians’ aggregate income would essentially be flat.

 “We haven’t seen this in decades, this level of income support coming from the federal government.”

If the kicker “kicks,” taxpayers would receive the personal income tax rebate as a credit on their 2021 taxes when they file next year.

The Oregonian coverage emphasized the traditional mixed response among state officials.

Governor Kate Brown, for her part, urged caution on the state spending until lawmakers know how much money Oregon will receive from a likely third federal virus relief package.  Plus, another quarterly revenue forecast is due in May, so there will be one more estimated on tax revenue before policymakers in Salem have to approve the 2021-23 state budget.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said the Legislature should increase spending to help Oregonians still experiencing “economic pain on the ground” from COVID-related job losses and the historic 2020 wildfires.

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, advocated a different point.  She said lawmakers should take a fiscally conservative approach to the budget and avoid increasing taxes on businesses.

“Given the state’s fragile economy, we must exercise fiscal discipline, not increase taxes or grow government programs and bureaucracy,” Drazan said. “We must focus our attention on getting the 150,000 Oregonians who have lost their jobs back to work and struggling small businesses back on their feet.”

So, as huge public policy issues confront state government – the virus, wildfire relief, health care policy, forest management practices and others – lawmakers also will face a typical battle over the kicker.

I understand both sides of the debate and, in fact, lobbied over my years in the business for increased spending on health care, education, maritime policy and technology, as well as restraint on overall state spending.

On the latter point, the kicker law is one protection against continued growth in state spending.

For me, the good news now is that I can watch the debate this time around from the cheap seats in Salem.

And, if I was to be involve ed in the debate, I would try to find middle ground, as I often like to do.  I would suggest that policymakers reach this agreement:  Direct the kicker money to reserve funds where it can grow so the state is able to turn to the reserves to cushion the blow the next time a recession looms.

Is this idea original with me?  No.  But, it is a good idea that represents solid middle ground.

IS ELIMINATING CORNOAVIRUS POSSIBLE? NO. IS VACCINATION STILL WORTH IT? YES

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 (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.

As my wife and I prepare for our second virus shot (due tomorrow, Friday, if the schedule holds), it is important to understand what’s in store for us and every other American, not to mention citizens of the world.

It is this:  Vaccinations will reduce incidence of the virus, not eradicate it.

So, is it worth taking?  For us, the answer is an easy yes.

This came to mind as I read a New York Times article, which said this:

“Ten years ago, a deadly infectious disease killed more than 36,000 Americans.  The next year, it killed more than 12,000.  And over each of the following eight years, the same disease caused be6ween 22,000 and 62,000 deaths.

“That disease is influenza – also known as the flu – and it ranks among the leading causes of deaths in the United States.

“Talking about the effects of a typical flu is somewhat fraught these days.  We are living with the worst pandemic in a century, one that is of a different magnitude from influenza.  In the early months of Covid-19, some people who were trying to deny its severity, including Donald Trump, claimed that it was barely worse than the flu.

“That’s false.

“In the coming months, Covid will probably will recede, as a result of vaccinations and immunity.  But it will not disappear.

“Some people have gotten the idea that we’re going to get to ‘Covid zero.  That’s not realistic.  It’s a fantasy.”

A reasonable goal, the NY Times suggests, is to make the virus manageable, much like the flu.  Fortunately, vaccines are doing that

As the NY Times put it:

“The vaccines will not produce Covid zero.  But they are on pace to produce something that looks like normalcy,” even if, on occasion, anti-vaxxers wax prolific in citing vaccine risks.

So, for my wife and me, we plan to ignore the risks.  bring on the second shot!

HOW A VIRTUAL LEGISLATURE WORKS – OR DOESN’T

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 (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.

If I reflect on my career as a lobbyist here in Oregon, I am glad it’s over.

I had a good 25-year run, but, in retirement, I have taken a look at what it means to operate with a “virtual legislature,” which is now under way during the pandemic. 
Not pretty or effective.

For me, if I was still lobbying, the major difference is that I would miss the chance to contact lawmakers individually to share perspectives from my clients.  And the lawmakers would miss the chance to engage on issues.

In a regular legislative session, I would talk to each of the 90 legislators – 30 in the Senate and 60 in the Senate – at least once, if not many more times.  Some more than others, but, still, all 90.

That personal touch makes lobbying in a state capitol like Salem much different than in Washington, D.C. where there are 500+ Members of Congress and more staff than you can count.  However, it’s important to note that, in D.C., you do rely heavily on that staff rather than being able to meet, most of the time, with individual representatives or senators.

All of this came to mind over the last couple days as I began to prepare for a Senate Rules Committee hearing in Salem on February 25 when four bills advocated by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission will be up for consideration.  I currently serve as the vie-chair of the Commission, so I will be testifying….remotely.

Virtual meetings such as the Senate Rules Commission hearing are handled under a State of Oregon contract with Microsoft Teams.  At the moment, it is how all hearings are handled, though it is possible that, down the road, an on-site legislature could return.

Here is a quick summary of how the virtual hearing will work.

• In advance of the hearing, names and addresses of those seeking to testify will be transmitted to the committee administrator.

• Just in advance of the start of the hearing, those testifying will be allowed to go live with Microsoft Teams.

• Before taking a turn to testify, all of those on the witness list will be asked to leave their systems on mute, which means they can watch and not talk.

• Then, of course, when called upon by the committee chair, those who tesify will go off mute and be allowed to speak.

• Don’t yet know how the question-answer part of most hearings will work.

• When done delivering comments or answering questions, those testifying are advised to go back on mute and listen/watch the rest of the hearing.

In this context, there will be no ability to meet individually with legislators to convey information about the Ethics Commission bills.  Testimony will have to suffice unless phone calls or texts are possible.

Legislators themselves, of course, will be outside the Capitol, as well, though there was one case last week where a Salem legislator, whose home was without power, ventured to his office at the Capitol to hold a virtual hearing.

That’s just the way it is.

But, based on my 25 years as a lobbyist, I believe texture and substance will be lost in the virtual approach.

So, I hope that, when the pandemic eases, all of us can get back to regular legislative business in Oregon, with the benefits of personal contact between legislators and those they represent.  Democracy is better for the personal contact.

TED CRUZ FLAMES OUT

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 (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 blog was almost too easy to write. 

Texas Senator Ted Cruz made himself into an easy mark.  And, guess what?  Even I could hit it.

If there is any justice in politics, Cruz won’t survive his latest escapade.

Talk about hypocrisy.

His trip to Cancun while his state, Texas, suffered through an historical cold snap, including the lack of drinkable water supplies, takes the cake.

What he chose to do is beyond the pale.  Plus, he blamed his family when it became known that he had left the state during an emergency.

Here’s the way The Atlantic Magazine put it to indicate that Cruz is more than a hypocrite:

“Nero fiddled while Rome burned; Ted Cruz jetted to Cancún. And although the emperor was at least ensconced in a lavish, louche palace, the senator from Texas was stuck in economy class with the peasantry.

“Cruz’s appeal as a politician, such as it is, has never been about being lovable or relatable, but the latest incident is embarrassing even by his standards.  He was spotted on a flight to Mexico, amid a catastrophic storm that has left Texans without power, heat, and sometimes water, huddled in freezing homes and community centers as the state’s electrical grid verges on collapse.

“More than a dozen of his constituents have already died. Cruz is headed home today—if not necessarily chastened, at least eager to control the damage.  In a statement, he said he took the trip at his daughters’ behest.  Blaming your children is a curious tack for an embattled politician, but he doesn’t have much else to work with.

“The pile-on was nearly as fierce as the storm. A Cruz tweet from December resurfaced in which he lambasted the mayor of Austin, a Democrat, for flying to Cabo San Lucas during coronavirus stay-at-home orders. ‘Hypocrites. Complete and utter hypocrites.’

“It is tempting to turn the ‘hypocrite’ label on Cruz, but his sin is worse.  Every politician is a hypocrite at some point.  Cruz’s error is not that he was shirking a duty he knew he should have been performing.  It’s that he couldn’t think of any way he could use his power as a U.S. senator to help Texans in need.  That’s a failure of imagination and of political ideology.”

To illustrate his duplicity, Cruz, in the past, tried to make political points by going after other politicians who had made serious mistakes during the pandemic.

One of those was California Governor Gavin Newsom, who went to a resort for dinner in wine country.  He is still paying a political price for the action.  One assumes that Cruz now won’t mention Newsom again.

Playing the villain is nothing new to Cruz.  In 2013, he helped shut down the government, and the next year, in the weeks before Christmas, he attempted a repeat performance, forcing the Senate into a rare weekend session that recalled all its members — furious with Cruz — back to Washington.

So, going after Cruz was more than I could resist.  He is the archetype of the worst political actor – a hypocrite guilty of rank duplicity.

Again an easy mark.  So I hit it.

A WELCOME CHANGE IN A PRESIDENT: TRUTH AND EMPATHY

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 (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.

Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty put it very well in a column she wrote yesterday:

“That a reality-show president has been replaced by one grounded in reality was apparent Tuesday night, when President Biden had his first extended conversation with average Americans since his election.

“’I don’t want to overpromise anything here,’ Biden said, speaking frankly about vaccinations, Covid relief and more.”

In an understatement, Tumulty said the scene represented a clear conflict with Donald Trump.

“It was quite a contrast from last March when, as the U.S. coronavirus death toll rose toward 600, then-president Trump blithely promised that happier times were just around the corner.

“I think Easter Sunday, and you’ll have packed churches all over our country. I think it would be a beautiful time. And it’s just about the timeline that I think is right,” Trump declared, mentioning a holiday that was less than three weeks away.”

That “timeline” turned out to be a fantasy, Tumulty wrote. The pandemic went on to kill nearly 490,000 Americans and disrupt almost every aspect of everyday life for almost a year, which ought to be accounted to Trump’s legacy.

Biden’s choice to be in Wisconsin was intentional.  It was a state he won by only about 20,000 votes.  His main goal was to make a pitch for his $1.9 trillion economic relief package, which does not appear to be picking up Republican support on Capitol Hill, though it is broadly popular with the public and among GOP mayors and governors.

In other appeals to the idea of bi-partisans action, plus talking honestly with Americans, which has marked Biden’s long career in public service, Tulmulty wrote:

• Biden also signaled, no doubt to the disappointment of more liberal Democrats, that he would be willing to scale back some parts of his plan.  For instance, the president told a worried small-business owner that concerns about Biden’s proposal to boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour were “totally legitimate,” and he said he might be willing to graduallyphase in an increase.
• Even as the president pointed to brighter days ahead, he sought to temper expectations as to how fast the country can get there.
• How soon will every American who wants one be able to get a vaccine?  Enough will be available “by the end of July,” Biden said.  But he made no guarantees that a distribution system would be in place by then to deliver those shots.
• How soon before schools reopen for in-person classes five days a week?  For kindergarten through eighth grade, by the end of April,he said, but cautioned, “It’s going to be harder to open up the high schools.”
• And when will things feel normal again?  “By next Christmas, I think we’ll be in a very different circumstance, God willing, than we are today,” the president said.

Normalcy appears to have returned, at least in the Oval Office.  There, as well as on the road, Biden talks truth. Instead of Trump’s denialism, we have a president who promises, “I will always level with you.”  A narcissist in chief has been replaced by someone to whom empathy comes naturally.

Tumulty closes:  “Biden appears to understand that the country cannot move forward until it puts Trump in the rearview mirror.”

Agreed as I counsel myself to look backward if only because I want to see Trump.

GOLF CHANGES IN LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA

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 (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 good news is that two golf tournaments in La Quinta, California – the American Express PGA tournament and the Prestige College Tournament – have been held despite the pandemic.

The AmEx went off without a hitch a couple weeks ago, though the normal three-day pro-am was scratched.  That meant pros played all four days without amateurs in their groups, a distinct change from the recent past.

As for the Prestige, it is under way on the Greg Normal Course at PGA West where Pepperdine leads after two rounds heading into today’s final.  Despite the pandemic, the tournament enjoys the largest field in the tourney’s history, including both the University of Oregon and Oregon State University.

Three weeks ago, Prestige tournament director Cy Williams was convinced the Prestige men’s college golf tournament would be played in La Quinta this week despite continuing restrictions in the state because of COVID- 19.  But he wasn’t sure about the field, including his own team, the University of California at Davis.

“Honestly,” he told the Desert Sun newspaper, “I thought the toughest part of this was, it’s not politics, but just all of the procedures going on with our county and our university.  We had to follow the protocols of the county, and then of course intertwined with that is the protocols of our university.  The fact that we were hosting in a different place really made it complicated.”

Despite the restrictions from the state, the University of California system and two counties in California, the Prestige was held, as well as featured the largest field in its history.

Five of the top nine teams in the most recent GolfWeek team rankings were entered, led by No. 2 San Diego State and No. 4 Arizona, along with No. 6 Arizona State, No. 8 Pepperdine and No. 9 SMU.

Navigating his own university’s restrictions was one thing, but Williams also had to oversee the challenge to collect testing data from the schools in the tournament.  He also had to understand how the tournament would work at PGA West, which just three weeks ago hosted the PGA Tour’s American Express tournament, though that was on different courses at the large La Quinta facility.

‘”Brian Hughes, the head pro at the Norman Course, sent us in December what the policies and procedures would be,” Williams said. “Golf was open. We sent them to the coaches and said, ‘Hey, this is how it is going to be. There aren’t going to be any rakes in the bunkers, you aren’t touching the flag.’ Everyone was fine. Everybody just wants to play golf.”

Speaking of Brian Hughes, I remember him from the past.  He was a good golfer in Oregon, and, with son Eric, played in the first USGA Mid-Amateur field Eric made in Connecticut.  Not only for the Prestige, but Brian has done a good job overall at the Greg Norman Course, which I say having played there a number of times.

More from the Desert Sun:  “Other changes for the Prestige were the elimination of a college-am tournament and a junior golf clinic the day before the event began.  Even the event’s traditional outdoor buffet has been replaced by packaged meals that can be taken to outdoor patios.

For Mark Weissman, founder and tournament director of the event, the key was working with Riverside County.

“From my vantage point and understanding, all the other events (like the American Express) had approval not only from their own tours but also the county was very pivotal,” Weissman said.  “For me, it was always important to talk to the county, and I think everyone agreed with that.”

Back to the American Express pro tournament.  Without a three-day pro am, the tournament exited from La Quinta Golf and County Club and used two other venues at PGA West – the Nicklaus Private and the Stadium Course.  There were no spectators.  Si Woo Kim won the event, his third win on the PGA tour.

As for me, I had been signed up to function as a walking scorer at La Quinta, but when the tournament was limited to pros only, I was excused from volunteering with the La Quinta course no longer in the rotation.  However, I am signed up to serve again next when, everyone hopes, the pandemic will be behind us – both for the PGA Tour and for college golf.

MOVING ON FROM IMPEACHMENT

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 (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.

It will not be a startling thought to suggest that, with impeachment in the rear-view mirror, it is time now to move on to other important public policy issues facing this country

Such as:

• Designing a coronavirus relief package that will address both U.S. health status and economic growth.

• Proposing an infrastructure package that can produce jobs.

• Looking at ways to build on the Affordable Care Act to provide health insurance coverage for more Americans.

• Dealing with racial equity issues in America.

• Completing Senate confirmation of the Biden Cabinet.

Last weekend, Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff to Barack Obama, as well as former mayor of Chicago, went on TV to utter solid thoughts about potential bi-partisanship actions.  He followed up in a Wall Street Journal piece with these thoughts:

“Biden can’t ignore the political risk of steamrolling the GOP.  A majority of Americans (especially independents) want him to follow through on his promise to work across the aisle.  If ‘build back better’ is the north star for this administration, Biden will need Republicans who vote against the relief package to work with him on climate, infrastructure, education and more.

“…because it appears that the minimum wage hike won’t pass as part of the relief package, he (Biden) can pair the priority with small-business reforms Republicans have long championed.  The last time Democrats raised the federal minimum wage in 2007, they won Republican acquiescence by adding tax cuts targeted to small businesses.  That bill passed the Senate 80-14, and Biden can follow the same model.”

As Rahm emphasizes, even if the virus relief bill passes “as a Biden bill,” there are many more opportunities for Biden to do what Biden does best, which is to lead in the effort to find middle ground.

It can be tempting to continue giving the Senate impeachment vote an autopsy.  Surely there was a grave Republican capitulation to former president Donald Trump.  Surely the votes in favor of Trump will resonate in history, even as Trump himself, I hope, will see his influence wane.

But, for government to work effectively, Democrats and Republicans will have to find a way to collaborate for the future rather than just to focus on the past.

Washington Post writer Dan Balz, one of the best and most experienced analysts in the media today, wrote about bi-partisanship in a column a week or so ago. His work appeared under this headline:

LESSONS BIDEN LEARNED AS VICE PRESIDENT SHAPE HIS DECISIONS ON HIS COVID RELIEF PACKAGE

“There is a good reason why Biden is pushing ahead with his virus recovery plan,” Balz wrote, “despite the absence of Republican support.  It is based on his experience as vice president during a previous economic downturn during the administration of President Barack Obama.

“What Republicans are proposing as a counter to Biden is not big enough to deal with the problems Biden sees.  He doesn’t want to go small, given the deep problems of the virus, on theory that there will be political will later to add to an initial effort.”

So, I say pass the virus bill, get the country moving again, and move on to bi-partisan actions based on leadership from the country’s chief executive and participation by smart operatives in Congress (and, yes, there are some left).

ONE LAST COMMENT ON IMPEACHMENT: ESCAPE, NOT EXONERATION FOR TRUMP

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 (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.

Almost done with impeachment commentary.

Note the word “almost.”

There is “almost” no way to describe the final vote in the Senate where most Republicans decided to acquit Donald Trump.

But I will say this:

The impeachment process will stand in history as a clear indictment of Trump and his abhorrent conduct.  He escaped.  He was not exonerated.

Most Republicans refused to cross the demagogue who appears still to rule the party.

To be sure, seven Republicans voted to convict Trump and I call their decision “votes of conscience.”

Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank, put it this way in his report about the impeachment vote:

The vote to acquit Trump was a “craven surrender to the political imperative not to cross the demagogue.  But the impeachment trial was not in vain, for it revealed the ugly truth:  Trump knew lawmakers’ lives were in danger from his violent supporters, and instead of helping the people’s representatives escape harm, Trump scoffed.

“When the yeas and nays were counted, seven Senate Republicans voted along with all 50 Democrats to convict Trump.  The other 43 Republicans, some of whom, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, feebly denounced Trump’s conduct even as they acquitted him, now have the cowardly distinction of licking the boots of the man who left them to die.”

And from the New York Times, this:

“Defeated by Joe Biden, stripped of his social media megaphone and twice impeached — still Donald Trump remains the dominant force in right-wing politics.

“The determination of so many Republican lawmakers to discard the mountain of evidence against Trump reflects how thoroughly the party has come to be defined by one man, and how divorced it now appears to be from any deeper set of policy aspirations and ethical or social principles.”

Given this unfortunate, though predictable, result in the U.S. Senate, it is now time to move on to other issues and hope Trump ends up in two places – (a) in state courts where he would have to defend himself and his fading empire, and (B) in the ash bin of history.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BOTTOM-LINE

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 (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 I go again writing about impeachment when I sit in the California desert far from the action.

But I have a TV, so I watch the historical process unfold in the nation’s Capitol – the second impeachment trial of the same president of the United States.

If there is a bottom-line question in the trial of former president Donald Trump, it is this:

What did he do after he knew a mob of “his people” had invaded the U.S. Capitol?

The answer?  Nothing.

• He let the riot go on without any effective social media intervention. 

• He did not use the regular news media to ask “his people” to stand down.

• He did not head down to the Capitol to instruct the rioters to stop.

• He did not call for reinforcements – including the National Guard — to defend the Capitol.

• He left his vice president, Mike Pence, open to attack and anger, only steps and seconds from being accosted by “his mob.”

So, if there are questions about what he did before the riot, if there is disagreement about the words he used to tell “his people” to fight (just normal political speech, his lawyers contended), if there is a question about his First Amendment right to speak, so be it.

But there is no question about what he did after the insurrection started.  Nothing.

Several Republican senators — Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – asked Trump lawyers about this in yesterday’s proceedings.  And each of these senators said they were unsatisfied with the answers.

That’s likely because there were no answers.

Consider what the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post wrote this morning.

From the Journal:  “Instead of bowing to dozens of court defeats, Trump escalated.  He falsely claimed that Vice President Mike Pence, if only he had the courage, could reject electoral votes and stop Democrats from hijacking democracy.  He called his supporters to attend a rally on Jan. 6, when Congress would do the counting. ‘Be there, will be wild!’  Trump tweeted.  His speech that day was timed to coincide with the action in the Capitol, and then he directed the crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Now his legacy will be forever stained by this violence, and by his betrayal of his supporters in refusing to tell them the truth.  Whatever the result of the impeachment trial, Republicans should remember the betrayal if Trump decides to run again in 2024.”

From the Post:  “It wasn’t a defense. Not in any serious factual, legal, or logical sense.

“What former president Donald Trump’s lawyers offered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Friday was an attack — a misleading, distortive, gas-lighting, repetitive, irrelevant and, at times, absurd although mercifully brief — attack.  It was an attack on the House impeachment managers, on Democrats, on the impeachment process. It was an attack on everything but the evidence against Trump.  It was a disgrace, like the man it failed to defend.”

I hope Trump’s actions and inactions will land indelibly in the hearts and minds of Americans.

It appears Trump won’t be convicted in the Senate, but I join the Wall Street Journal to say, “let his legacy be forever stained.”