PUTS AND TAKES FROM PRESIDENT BIDEN’S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

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 you read the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post a day ago, you got strikingly different assessments of President Joseph Biden’s address to Congress this seek.

No surprise, I suppose.  Because that’s what almost always happens with the right-of-center Wall Street Journal and the left-of-center Washington Post.

In other words, it’s a good idea to read more than one journalistic outlet – yes, if you can find good ones like the Journal and the Post – to get more than one viewpoint and then form your own conclusions.

For me, with Biden’s address, my conclusions are these: 

• It’s good to have a mature, reasonable human being in the White House who uses good words to make proposals.
• Yet, Biden’s proposals go too far to rely on government to insert itself into what should be private decisions, with little clarity about how the aggressive map will be funded.
• Perhaps that what you do when negotiations start – you go high and then, presumably at least, end up somewhere in the middle.
• But, negotiation requires a two-way street.  Led by Biden – he was elected president, after all – Democrats propose.  Republicans, then, need to offer real, perhaps lesser proposals, rather than going so low so early that what they propose isn’t negotiating.

The following viewpoints illustrate the competing assessments of what Biden said to Congress, even as, for the first time in history, he stood before two women on the dais – Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

FROM WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL WRITERS:  The historic expansion of government, education, and health- and child-care benefits Biden proposed Wednesday would make it substantially easier for Americans to work, raise children and educate themselves.  It avoids some of the less appealing ideas congressional Democrats have been pushing.  And yet it has significant gaps, both in taxing and in spending.

FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL WRITERS:  First, here was the headline — Biden’s Cradle-to-Grave Government/His latest $1.8 trillion plan rejects the old social contract of work for benefits.

The progressive hits keep coming from the Biden Administration, and the latest is the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan introduced in broad strokes on Wednesday. It’s more accurate to call this the plan to make the middle class dependent on government from cradle to grave. The government will tell you sometime later, after you’re hooked to the state, how it will force you to pay for it.

We’d call the price tag breathtaking, but by now what’s another $2 trillion?  Add $2 trillion or so each for the Covid and green energy (“infrastructure”) bills, and that’s $6 trillion of new spending in 100 days.  That doesn’t include the regular federal budget of more than $4 trillion a year. No worries, mate, the Federal Reserve will monetize the debt.

But the cost, while staggering, isn’t the only or even the biggest problem. The destructive part is the way the plan seeks to insinuate government cash and the rules that go with it into all of the major decisions of family life. The goal is to expand the entitlement state to make Americans rely on government and the political class for everything they don’t already provide.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN, WASHINGTON POST OPINION WRITER:  It did not look like a typical presidential address before Congress.  Wednesday night’s event, which lacked the packed House chamber due to pandemic guidelines, was missing some of the buzz and drama of past speeches.

But there was a far more important difference this year:  The return of normal presidential rhetoric and the embrace of traditional democrat values.  As an added bonus, Americans saw two powerful women perched behind the president — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Harris.  It made for a compelling, historic tableau and a reminder that only one party sends a consistently inclusive message.

FROM KARL ROVE, WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION WRITER:  …the Biden Administration acts as if it has a broad mandate to pursue the most ambitious left-wing agenda in history, involving a massive expansion of the federal government and unsustainable spending increases.

So, I say make own decision about all of this.  But, in any event, my hope is that those in charge in Washington, D.C. will get about the real business of government, which is to find the smart middle ground. 

That means Biden will have to get and give.  And it will mean Republicans in Congress will have to do the same.

THERE WE WERE, “STUCK IN LODI 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 (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.

Remember that song by one of my favorite bands – Credence Clearwater Revival – “Stuck in Lodi Again.”

Well, the words came rolling through my mind a couple days ago when my wife and I (along with our faithful dog, Callaway) traveled north to Salem, Oregon from our winter sojourn in La Quinta, California.

The town of Lodi is about halfway home so we often stay there to make the full, 16-hour drive in two days, not one.  For some years, we stayed in an Interstate-5 roadside motel and, thus, didn’t know anything about the quaint town five miles inland – Lodi – which also is fertile wine country.

This time, again, we stayed in an AirBNB, having a total house with garage, abutting a pomegranate orchard.  Unfortunately, the pomegranates weren’t ripe yet.

While “Stuck in Lodi Again” and on the way north, I thought of some of my impressions of trip, most of which is along I-5.

• Amazon trucks:  The number of these trucks in incredible, more than double the kind you see with any other brand.  Makes one think about the incredible work Amazon does to deliver on-line requests almost anywhere in a day or two.

• UPS and Fed-Ex trucks:  To repeat, not so many.

• The word “logistics:”  As you drive by huge numbers of big rigs, many of them announced that they are involved in ”logistics.”  That is a word quickly becoming the norm.  Transportation?  No.  Hauling?  No.  Call carrying stuff “logistics.”

• Major hiring:  All along the way, on many trucks we passed, as well as buildings near the highway, we saw “we are hiring” signs.  So, they are jobs awaiting those who don’t have them or are dislocated by the pandemic.

• California roads:  Long sections of I-5, as well as feeder roads from La Quinta north, are in dire need of repair.  The bumps and holes may be one result of so much truck traffic.  But, if you give California credit for having so many lanes of traffic heading north through major cities such as Sacramento and Stockton, other side of the coin is road disrepair.

• Big rigs transporting Tesla vehicles to Oregon:  During our five-month sojourn in the California desert, we noticed a large number of Tesla vehicles.  Then, on the trip, we noticed a few big rigs transporting Tesla vehicles to Oregon.  Must be a growing market here.

• Farms along the way:  As we drove, my wife Nancy had a good idea — this:  Ask farmers to put signs on their crops visible from the highway so we know what we are seeing.  Sometimes it’s obvious, as with rice in the paddies or oranges on the trees.  Sometimes it’s not.

• Cows in dirt fields:  My wife also moans – as I do – when we see so many cows lying around in dirt fields.  Better to see them munching on green grass.

See, nothing major here.  Just impressions along the way.

GOVERNOR’S RACE IN OREGON IN 2022: WHERE ARE THE VIABLE REPUBLICANS? NOWHERE

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.

I wrote a few days ago about an Oregonian newspaper article listing potential candidates for governor when the incumbent’s (Kate
Brown) final term expires in about a year.

There were only Democrats listed among the potential candidates and I noted that fact.

Then, late this week, the on-line Oregon Catalyst newsletter came up with a list of potential Republican candidates, using information provided by a group called the “Oregon Taxpayer Association” – which, by the way, does not include me, an Oregon taxpayer, because the group is too far right for me.

No wonder the Oregonian didn’t include any of the R names. 

I am a political junkie of sorts and I didn’t recognize all of the names on the list based on the Catalyst report – some, but not all.  See if you recognize any of the names, which are provided with percentages based on a “straw poll,” whatever that is.

45 per cent – Stan Pulliam
21 per cent – Bud Pierce
19 per cent – Bill Post
7 per cent – Tootie Smith
5 per cent – Dallas Heard
3 per cent – Paul Romero

Leading candidate Stan Pulliam is the Mayor of Sandy. Bud Pierce was the 2016 Republican governor candidate I do know because he is from Salem. 

Bill Post is a state representative and former radio host, whom I know represents of Salem.

Tootie Smith is chair of Clackamas County Commission and a former state representative, whom I also know from her time in Salem.

Dallas Heard is a state senator and current Oregon GOP Chair. Paul Romero is a former Congressional candidate.  I don’t know either of them.

The fact that I know some, not all, of the Republican names also indicates that I suspect none of them will have any capacity to run statewide.

That means a Democrat is likely to succeed Brown.  And that means that a run of Ds in the state’s top political job will continue unabated.  

The last Republican governor of Oregon was the late Victor Atiyeh — and that was more than 35 years ago.

As a voter in Oregon, I wish there would be a genuine race for governor.  That would give us a chance to compare and contrast credentials no matter for whom you choose to vote.  As it is, the Democrat will win.

SOLID COMMENTS ABOUT CHAUVIN VERDICT FROM OREGON TREASURER TOBIAS READ

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.

In the aftermath of events like the guilty verdict for Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, politicians often utter rather meaningless comments.

Not so with Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read.

His comments indicate a depth of reaction and analysis that reflects well on his character.  He also uses words effectively.

Yes, I am biased.

I know Read well, having lobbied him over the years at the Oregon Legislature and watching him rise there, given his intellect and passion.  He always dealt with me – on behalf of my clients – with honesty and clarity.  Sometimes we agreed.  Other times we didn’t.

Now, Read, a Democrat, is being mentioned as a possible candidate for governor when Kate Brown reaches the end of her last term in office.

I say, good.  He should run and give Oregonians an opportunity to consider his credentials for the state’s top political job.

Here is a text of Read’s comments after the Chauvin verdict:

Let me be clear:  Derek Chauvin being found guilty is a tremendous relief, and the right outcome.  The whole country has watched and witnessed racial injustice, civil unrest, and the need for policing reforms.  This verdict is important, and we’re all relieved.  But this long overdue conversation must not end here.

Communities across the country, including right here in Oregon, have been ripped apart by a legacy of racial injustice.  We all have to do our part to build a better, more equitable future.  But more importantly, this needs to be a time of listening, and elevating other voices – voices that for too long were ignored or intentionally sidelined.

I wrote to you a few months ago about Martin Luther King Day and mentioned one of the incredible organizations doing this important work in Oregon.  If you aren’t sure how you can participate in this movement, take a look at the Black United Fund of Oregon. They’re one of a number of important groups making a positive impact for our communities in Oregon every day.  Whether you’re a volunteer, advocate, or donor, I know that the work you’re doing on behalf of the Black United Fund of Oregon, or other groups, will make a real difference.

The moral arc of history does not bend easily, but together, we’re up to the task.

NEGOTIATING: A LOST ART 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 (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 written about this subject before, mostly in connection with a major political issue these days – whether President Joe Biden is serious about developing bi-partisan solutions to public policy challenges.

Biden advocates say he is serious.  He says he is open to serious counter-proposals.

de asays

Leading Republicans say he isn’t.  They say he is talking about bi-partisanship, not acting on it.

It appears never the twain shall meet.

In a piece in the Washington Post this week, contributing columnist Matt Bai wrote that Republican moderates need a negotiating lesson.

His lead comments:

“It’s been a rough couple of years for Republican moderates. They lost most of their seats.  A reactionary president took over their party. Brooks Brothers went out of business.

“But sometimes, in our darkest moments, what we need is some tough love and brutal honesty.  So here it is.

“It’s time to stop whining like a bunch of cranky toddlers and get into the game.

“I’m talking about a rather extraordinary set of interviews highlighted in Politico’s Playbook last week, in which the so-called G-10 — a group of moderate Republican senators — erupted over what they feel is unfair treatment at the hands of the White House and media.”

Apparently, Bai continued, these senators and their aides thought they were going to be pivotal dealmakers with a president who claimed to want bi-partisanship, especially when they were invited to the White House in the early days of the Administration to talk through their ideas for a covid-19 relief bill.

“What’s amazing to me is that a group of people who take such pride in their understanding of business could so completely fail to grasp the basic principles of negotiation.

“Here’s an exercise.  Let’s say you want to sell your car, and you set an asking price of $10,000, figuring you’ll take a little less.

“A guy comes along and offers you $3,000 instead.  Are you supposed to meet him in the middle?  Or, are you going to tell him to come back when he’s serious about buying the car?

“That’s pretty much the situation in which Biden found himself. After Biden proposed a $1.9 trillion relief bill, on which he was probably expecting a reasonable counteroffer, the 10 Republican senators answered with a proposal for … $600 billion. That wasn’t even in the zip code of reasonable.

“Even then, they couldn’t guarantee the vote of every Republican in the room for their smaller package, much less anyone else in the caucus.”

The car example is a good one that, to me, illustrates these notions: 

• It takes two sides to negotiate.
• Both sides have to be genuine and truthful in reacting to the other.
• One side has to lead – in this case, the president who was elected to make proposals – and other side has to respond in the sense that its task is to dispose, which doesn’t mean toss presidential ideas in the dustbin. 

On occasion, the best response, in fact, could be “no,” but that is the case when the issue in play truly is one where principals and truth demand a “no,” not just a political “no.”  It is not when such issues as pandemic controls and infrastructure are in play.  Those are issues for the entire country.

Bai continued:

“All this might have made sense if it were really just the kind of strategic feint Republican leaders used during the Obama years: Offer something obviously untenable and then gleefully blame the president for refusing to compromise.  But this group actually seemed to think they were going to drive away in the car.

“I happen to believe the country is better served by having serious-minded Republicans at the negotiating table.  I think it would be better for Biden and for all of us if he were forced to make some hard choices about what to prioritize and how to pay for it, rather than tossing in every imaginable new program and slamming it home with a party-line vote.

“That won’t happen, though, until Republican moderates stop their sobbing about the injustice of it all and start offering some realistic alternatives.  They have another opportunity with the infrastructure bill, where there seems to be some hope of finding a reasonable compromise.”

To Bai’s contentions, I say he is right on.  It’s time to negotiate real solutions to real public policy challenges for the benefit of all Americans, not time to engage in politics as usual.

So far, Republicans appear to be guilty of Bai’s notion that they offer untenable responses, then “gleefully blame the president for refusing to negotiate.”

Put another way, there are costs to presidential elections.  In the case of Trump, he had the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to fulminate.

In the case of Biden, he has the same bully pulpit, but, though not perfect, he tends to “act like a president.”  So, it’s time for Republicans to engage in real negotiations.

LIST OF OREGON GOVERNOR HOPEFULS EXCLUDES ANY MENTION OF REPUBLICANS

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 Oregonian newspaper produced a story recently indicating who might be thinking of running for governor when the current one, Kate Brown, reaches the end of her time in the state’s top political job.

What was interesting, though not surprising:  Not one Republican name made the top list.

That’s because Republicans have great difficulty surmounting the Democrat registration edge in the state’s urban areas.  There has not been a Republican governor for more than 35 years.  Vic Atiyeh was the last one and, as the preamble to this blog indicates, it was my please to work for him.

Chris Dudley came close in a race against John Kitzhaber – he, Dudley, won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties.  He just couldn’t offset Kitzhaber’s edge in Multnomah County and other urban areas.

Under this headline — Many Oregon Democrats eye 2022 governor’s race, 1st competitive intra-party contest in a decade — the Oregonian listed these Democrats as considering the race:

• Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
• Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read
• Oregon Labor Commissioner Val Hoyle
• Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek
• Multnomah County Commission Chair Deborah Kafoury.
• Oregon Senator Betsy Johnson

Thus, for the first time in many years, there is a prospect for a competitive Democrat primary.  It appears to be fueling fundraising and campaign activity by these top officials, in what would normally be a downtime after the November 2020 election.

Beaverton area Democrat Read already has raised $100,000 this year and spent $50,000, according to campaign finance records.

Rosenblum, from Portland, has also been spending on political consultants and fundraising this year, after winning re-election last year to a third term as Attorney General.

Speculation also has arisen that Oregon’s new Secretary of State Shemia Fagan might want to run for governor.  A Democrat from the Portland area, she has continued to send a flurry of campaign emails since she took office in January, but, in fact, also told The Oregonian/oregonlive she is not running for governor and intends to serve her full four-year term as secretary of state.  We’ll see.

The state’s last seriously contested Democrat primary occurred in 2010 when former governor Kitzhaber ran against former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.  Kitzhaber ended up trouncing Bradbury 65 per cent to 30 per cent.  Kitzhaber’s resignation in early 2015 pushed Brown into the role as the incumbent governor.  Voters elected and re-elected her in 2016 and 2018, which means she cannot run again.

Back to the other issue here – where are the Republicans?

Over the weeks down here in La Quinta, California for the winter, I have found time to talk, between golf games, to a couple seasoned Oregon political observers who also are friends.  The two used to be Republicans, but renounced the label when they could no longer tolerate the style of former President Donald Trump.

Still, they keep track of Oregon politics.

Their answer and mine.

None of us could think of a Republican who has a ghost of a chance to run for governor – or, perhaps more accurately, actually to be governor.

Where in the world are the Republicans?  I say that not because I automatically want a Republican to win.  I say it because, if there were a Republican candidate for governor, all of us who vote would have a choice to make at the ballot.

MORE WORDS MATTER

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 phrase in the headline is one of my favorites, in part because my style over the years has favored words over charts, graphs and lists of numbers.

All of those, of course, have their place, not just at the top of my list.

Two developments caught my attention yesterday.

• First, the Biden administration says it plans to order U.S. immigration enforcement agencies to stop using terms such as “alien,” “illegal alien” and “assimilation” when referring to immigrants in the United States.
• Second, Oregonian newspaper editor Therese Bottomly used her memo to readers to say this:  “I’ve written before about the evolving language and how newspapers are often slower to adjust than society at large.  We now use the singular “they” when subjects prefer it and capitalize the “B” in Black.  Other choices are more subtle, and sometimes the change occurs without notice or comment.”

Both developments indicate an inherent truth about language.  Things change.  Consider capitalizing the “B” in Black; I do it now, too, as one way to verify that I don’t want to leave any hint of racist tendencies on my part, even subtle ones.  I also want to emphasize Black ethnic heritage.

Bottomly went on in her memo to discuss tough language issues for journalists these days.

“Prison guards, for instance,“ she wrote, “prefer to be called ‘correctional officers,’ which they believe better reflects their role.  I’d say we use both, depending on context.

“Some changes reflect changing societal norms:  Newspapers nowadays typically don’t use words like ‘cripple,’ for example.  The word ‘handicap’ has similarly fallen by the wayside.

“Journalists have a responsibility to bust through jargon of any kind to ensure clarity and accuracy.  News organizations have moved away from ‘officer-involved shooting,’ which means plainly a police officer shot someone.

“We translate police jargon, changing ‘adult males’ to ‘men,’ ‘juveniles’ to ‘teens,’ ‘canine unit’ to ‘police dog.’”

Bottomly also commented on the unintended harm that can be done by using labels, a challenge which can befall journalists, as well as all of us.

For instance, the Associated Press Stylebook says this as it relates to the word “disabilities:”

“When possible, ask people how they prefer to be described (when the description is relevant).  Some people, for example, refer to themselves as a disabled person or simply disabled, using identity-first language.  Others prefer person with a disability, using person-first language.  In describing groups of people, use person-first language.”

Further, last week, the Marshall Project, a non-profit journalism organization focused on criminal justice, introduced a style guide of sorts, a primer on how news organization would refer to people going forward.  In a preamble to its guide, it said:

“Reporters and editors have long believed that terms such as ‘inmate,’ ‘felon’ and ‘offender’ are clear, succinct and neutral.  But a vocal segment of people affected by the criminal justice system argue that these words – and any other words that define human beings by their crimes and punishments – are dehumanizing.”

Sometimes, “the stigma and material consequences of incarceration are so deep that what seems like a basic descriptor to journalists becomes a permanent, potentially life-altering label.”

Labels in journalism also relate to terms like “conservative” and “liberal.”  Often, conservative is used more than liberal, but both end up being generalizations that probably don’t convey a person’s overall political leanings.

And, consider words in common usage that are not really words at all.  The best example:  Irregardless.  Its definition:  Regardless.

Finally, think of words that are nouns, but end up being used as verbs.  One of the ones used more and more these days is helm.  It is a noun, but often I see it used in this way – “The legislator helmed a group.”  No, the word should be “led” or something close to it.

Or, one more.  The word golf.  It often said that someone “golfed” their ball.  No.  It should be hit their ball.

What all of this indicates to me is the need is to use words carefully… for several reasons:

• To avoid unintentional stigmas that could result from using words poorly.

• To cut through jargon by using simple, straightforward words.

• To strive for accuracy in the use of words.

As I said, words matter to me.  One risk is that, when I write, I might use a wrong word from time to time, which, I think, is a risk worth running.  Because, when a wrong word turns up, I might avoid making the same mistake again.

A CONTRIBUTION FROM GEORGE BUSH TO THE DEBATE ON IMMIGRATION

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.

When he was president, I liked George Bush for several reasons.

He showed grace and skill under pressure.  He led the nation in responding effectively to the 911 terrorist attack.  He came across as human, admitting his failures and mistakes.

Now, another reason to like Bush has emerged.  It was noted in the Washington Post under this headline:

George W. Bush: Immigration is a defining asset of the United States. Here’s how to restore confidence in our system.

The nation’s 43^rd president has emerged with what strikes me as incredible piece of work, a book that contains at least two things – a prescription for what this nation should do to reform the immigration system, and a series of drawings by Bush that illustrate that he is an accomplished artist.

I looked at his drawings (which, unfortunately do not copy well in this blog, so I suggest that you get a copy of his new book, which I will do, as well) and recognized almost all of the subjects.

But, here, rather that write more myself, I reprint what Bush proposes on immigration.

**********

Next week, I’m proud to publish a new collection of my paintings, entitled “Out of Many, One.” The book may not set the art world stirring — hopefully, the critics won’t call it “One Too Many.”

I set out to accomplish two things: to share some portraits of immigrants, each with a remarkable story I try to tell, and to humanize the debate on immigration and reform.

I hope that these faces, and the stories that accompany them, serve as a reminder that immigration isn’t just a part of our heritage. New Americans are just as much a force for good now, with their energy, idealism and love of country, as they have always been.

I write about a champion runner who barely survived ethnic violence in East Africa, and who told me, “America has given me everything I dreamed of as a boy.” I share the story of a young man from France who followed his dream to become an American soldier, and went on to earn the Medal of Honor. And readers may recognize two distinguished citizens who fled prewar Europe as children, and who each became U.S. secretary of state.

The backgrounds are varied, but readers won’t have to search hard for a common theme. It’s gratitude. So many immigrants are filled with appreciation, a spirit nicely summed up by a Cuban American friend who said: “If I live for a hundred years, I could never repay what this country has done for me.”

The help and respect historically accorded to new arrivals is one reason so many people still aspire and wait to become Americans. So how is it that in a country more generous to new arrivals than any other, immigration policy is the source of so much rancor and ill will? The short answer is that the issue has been exploited in ways that do little credit to either party. And no proposal on immigration will have credibility without confidence that our laws are carried out consistently and in good faith.

“Out of Many, One” is not a brief for any specific set of policies, which I leave to the political leaders of today. However, the book — along with the George W. Bush Presidential Center — does set forth principles for reform that can restore the people’s confidence in an immigration system that serves both our values and our interests.

One place to start is DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Americans who favor a path to citizenship for those brought here as children, known as “dreamers,” are not advocating open borders. They just recognize that young men and women who grew up in the United States, and who never knew any other place as home, are fundamentally American. And they ought not be punished for choices made by their parents.

Another opportunity for agreement is the border. I have long said that we can be both a lawful and a welcoming nation at the same time. We need a secure and efficient border, and we should apply all the necessary resources — manpower, physical barriers, advanced technology, streamlined and efficient ports of entry, and a robust legal immigration system — to assure it.

Effective border management starts well beyond the border, so we must work with our neighbors to help them build freedom and opportunity so their citizens can thrive at home. We cannot rely on enforcement alone to prevent the untenable and so often heartbreaking scenes that come with large-scale migration.

We also need a modernized asylum system that provides humanitarian support and appropriate legal channels for refugees to pursue their cases in a timely manner. The rules for asylum should be reformed by Congress to guard against unmerited entry and reserve that vital status for its intended recipients.

Increased legal immigration, focused on employment and skills, is also a choice that both parties should be able to get behind. The United States is better off when talented people bring their ideas and aspirations here. We could also improve our temporary entry program, so that seasonal and other short-term jobs can more readily be filled by guest workers who help our economy, support their families and then return home.

As for the millions of undocumented men and women currently living in the United States, a grant of amnesty would be fundamentally unfair to those who came legally or are still waiting their turn to become citizens. But undocumented immigrants should be brought out of the shadows through a gradual process in which legal residency and citizenship must be earned, as for anyone else applying for the privilege. Requirements should include proof of work history, payment of a fine and back taxes, English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and a clean background check. We should never forget that the desire to live in the United States — a worldwide and as powerful an aspiration as ever — is an affirmation of our country and what we stand for. Over the years, our instincts have always tended toward fairness and generosity. The reward has been generations of grateful, hard-working, self-reliant, patriotic Americans who came here by choice.

If we trust those instincts in the current debate, then bipartisan reform is possible. And we will again see immigration for what it is: not a problem and source of discord, but a great and defining asset of the United States.

REPUBLICANS STRUGGLE TO LAND BLOWS AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN

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.

Republicans appear flummoxed by President Joe Biden.

They don’t know how to attack him, even though attacking is what they do best, so they should be good at it.

Hill.com made the same point in a piece that appeared on-line yesterday.  Here is how it started:

“Biden is proving to be an elusive cipher for Republicans to successfully message against nearly 100 days into his Administration, keeping a relatively low profile and refusing to engage in the day-to-day verbal sparring that has consumed Washington in recent years. 

“It presents a challenge that, GOP senators acknowledge, they aren’t hitting the mark on.”

The #2 senator among Republicans, John Thune, put it this way:

“We need to get better at it.  I don’t think sometimes our messaging is as sharp as it should be because a lot of the things they’re doing are things that are popular —when you’re spending money — you’re popular.”

For me, it’s not just spending money that makes Biden popular.

It’s also his style of acting like a real president, which is very different than his predecessor.  Donald Trump made headlines every day by criticizing everyone and everything that wasn’t him, which is just what an accomplished narcissist would do.

But Biden has spent decades building his reputation as an affable dealmaker who came up through the party’s centrist wing.  During the 2020 campaign, he talked up his relationship with Republicans and hoped that, after left office, the “fever” would break.

His bi-partisan rhetoric has continued in the White House, with the Administration reaching out to GOP lawmakers through private phone calls and publicly disclosed Oval Office meetings.

Republicans, however, view the rhetoric as out-of-touch with how he’s governing, pointing to invites to the White House that don’t result in actual policy changes that move toward the GOP. 

Republicans also are betting that voters will ultimately turn against Biden’s trillion-dollar spending.

“His tone is moderate and he’s an affable person, he’s a likeable individual and a lot of us know him, have relationships with him and it’s probably harder to attack somebody who is relatable and likeable,” Thune told Hill.com. 

But, he added, “If he continues down the left, the far-left lane, with respect to policy, that eventually that will start to catch up with him.” 

That isn’t panning out for Republicans so far, with Biden winning praise on both style and substance from the right as recently as this week.

For one thing, Republicans were quick to back new sanctions the Administration announced against Russia.  For another, Biden’s speech at the memorial for a Capitol Police officer killed this month earned him praise even from Fox News, where the reporter called him “iconic” for delivering “kindness and empathy.”

So, Biden’s “nice guy” reputation and moderate tone have helped insulate him politically and could continue to do so, though he faces huge challenges that will test his popularity, including the Southern border crisis, the continuing pandemic, and challenges from China and Russia.

Republicans also are having a hard time understanding how Biden’s approval ratings have held so steady since he took office in January. 

A Pew Research Center poll released last week put Biden’s approval at 59 per cent, up from 54 per cent in the Center’s March survey.  Forty-six per cent of Americans also said they liked how Biden “conducts himself as president,” compared to 27 per cent who don’t.  Forty-four per cent believe he has improved the political debate.

So, the foregoing illustrates that, with all challenges, Biden is doing well in his first 100 days. 

For my part, I wish he would end up looking more open to Republican entreaties, including on the size of the spending he proposes, as well as how to pay for it.  But being open requires Republican’s to come to the Administration with other than just the “no” answer.  They ought to offer proposals that have some chance to fly, given that they are dealing with an individual who was elected president to lead the Executive Branch.

At base, I am just relieved that we now have a president who acts like a president, instead of like a carnival barker. 

Biden will have to up his game when it comes to bi-partisan actions, but his history and style gives me confidence that he can do so.

WHY IT’S IMPORTANT TO READ ALL OF THE WORDS IN PIECES OF LEGISLATION

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.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post this morning caught my attention as it illustrated an important, but often ignored, activity.

It is this:  Before advocating or opposing a piece of legislation, it is important to read all of the words in the bill.

Otherwise, all you are doing is uttering what could turn out to be falsehoods.

In this case, in the Post, the issue revolves around the controversial law passed in Georgia that many observers believe was passed to make it more difficult for Black persons to vote.

Not necessarily true.  But more about that later in this blog, even though I admit here that I have not read the Georgia bill.

First, I want to cite two examples of the “I don’t need to read the bill before talking action” proposition that I remember from my days as a lobbyist.

ISSUE #1:  Back in the day when the late Representative Mitch Greenlick was chairing the House Health Care Committee in Oregon, he thought he knew best about what the state needed to do in Medicaid reform.  He always had the best ideas, or so he thought.

So, he invested his personal staff with the task of drafting a major bill on Medicaid, the joint state-federal government programs to fund health care for low-income individuals.  When the bill was “unveiled” – and, I use that word advisedly – it ran to more than 200 pages. 

When it came up for a hearing in House Health Care, no one – no one – had read the bill.  It has not been unveiled in a reasonable way. 

Members of Greenlick’s committee hadn’t read it.  Lobbyists trying to represent Oregon’s Medicaid interests (including me) were left in the dark.  Members of the public were out of the loop.

Still, Greenlick didn’t care.  He persevered.  The bill, even though no one knew for sure what it contained, was passed out of committee and on to the House floor where it also passed.

That left lobbyists like me with the task of killing the bill in the Senate.  We succeeded, in part because no one had read it, but it stands as a bad way to do the public’s business.

ISSUE #2:  I was not involved in this issue personally because it occurred in Washington, D.C. and I worked in Oregon.  The issue was the bill to create the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called “ObamaCare.”

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a vote on the House bill, she admitted out loud that she had not read it.  One reason:  It took 2,000 pages to create ObamaCare.

The days since its passage illustrate that there are many good points in the bill, but also some bad ones.  Better if those who voted for it had read it beforehand to make expanding health care coverage in the United States a solid goal, not a misunderstood one.

Now, back to the Georgia voting law.

Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating and financial officer for the Georgia Secretary of State, used a Washington Post opinion piece to illustrate various misunderstandings in the elections bill – most because those criticizing it have not read it.

And that, Sperling contended, includes President Joe Biden.

“The reaction to Georgia’s new election law has me worried again,”
Sperling writes.  “Though I have not received any threats yet, I worry that the president and others once again are spreading lies about what is going on in Georgia.”

Sterling’s points include these:

• The new legislation does not decrease early voting hours.  In fact, early voting hours have been expanded by adding an extra mandatory Saturday of early voting and continuing to allow Sunday voting.  Early voting hours must be open from at least 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., a step up from the “normal business hours” required by previous law.  Counties can extend those hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., as many have done in the past.
• The bill does not prevent giving water to voters standing in line, though it does continue the policy of making it illegal to provide gifts of value to voters to reward them for casting a ballot in a certain way.  Notably, the bill allows groups to donate water for poll workers to give out.
• The bill does not add set out to restrict voting by requiring voters to present photo ID.  Ninety-seven per cent of Georgia voters have a driver’s license or a free state voter ID, so it is logical, Georgia officials maintain, to include that method of identifying voters by name.
• Contrary to popular belief, the legislation writes ballot drop boxes into law for the first time in Georgia history.  They were created by a temporary emergency rule in Georgia in response to the pandemic last year.   Without legislation, drop boxes would be unlawful.

So, all of this about the Georgia underlines the importance of reading actual language in pieces of legislation.

If you read all of the words, then it is entirely appropriate to make comments – pro and con – about pieces of legislation.