MORE ON PRESIDENT BIDEN’S OFF-SCRIPT COMMENT

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 about this earlier in the week, contending that President Joe Biden – and any other president – should stick to a script, especially when dealing with complicated and dangerous foreign policy issues.

Too much is at stake to allow full, ad-libbed candor in U.S. foreign policy.

Biden’s off-the-cuff comment that Russian president Vladimir Putin would have to go was not a statement of U.S. foreign policy, though it was understood by some in the world to be so.

Wall Street Journal columnist William Galston added this perspective:

“The journalist Michael Kinsley famously proposed that ‘a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.’

“By this standard, the ad-libbed final sentence of Biden’s Warsaw speech may be a gaffe for the ages.  Administration officials scurried to walk back the suggestion that regime change in Russia was among the objectives of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.  

“America’s NATO ambassador, Julianne Smith, suggested (plausibly enough) that Biden’s words represented ‘a principled human reaction” to his encounter earlier in the day with hundreds of desperate Ukrainian refugees.”

Biden’s impromptu remark, Galston added, “dominated coverage of an otherwise strong speech.  It raised a larger question:  Is it conceivable that the rest of the world can return to business as usual with Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president, or must he and his country be treated as international pariahs so long as he remains in power?”

No one knows the answer yet.  I surely don’t.  But it could be that the world, if it wants peace, could answer “yes.”  It’s time to Putin to go given the way he has acted recently, without regard to human life, evoking, for me, the spirit of Adolph Hitler.

But, in the end, I continue to hope that Biden uses his vast foreign policy experience to lead well, even as he sets out to stay on-script.

A TENSION: STAYING ON-SCRIPT OR GOING OFF-SCRIPT

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.

A phrase in a story about President Joe Biden going off-script in a speech in Brussels, Belgium, caught my attention this week.

One seasoned observer analyzed it this way: “It reminds us that message discipline has its virtues.  It was reportedly very clearly an unscripted moment.”

Here is what Biden said:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power.”

This illustrated the tension in this blog headline — sticking to a script or going off-script.  And Biden is paying a price for his candor and so is the country as a whole as some suspect that Biden’s ad lib actually represents U.S. foreign policy, which is does not.

In the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson wrote what many may be thinking in the aftermath of Biden’s candor.

“Biden said what many people around the globe, including world leaders, are surely thinking.  Putin has turned Ukraine into a charnel house and his own Russia into a pariah state.  He has violated the principle of respect for internationally recognized borders that for more than seven decades has kept us from somehow stumbling into an unimaginable World War III.”

In a column in the Wall Street Journal, retired senior editor Gerard Baker wrote under this headline:  “Biden at the Improv:  Ukraine and the Dangers of Foreign Policy by Open Mic; What if someone takes seriously his talk of U.S. troop deployments or regime change in Russia?”

“… some words have larger consequences than others—especially when you’re the president of the United States,” Baker wrote.  “It’s one thing to misidentify your vice president as the first lady, but quite another to call for the ouster of an autocratic and bellicose leader of a nation with nuclear weapons.  That is the kind of thing that can trigger wars that could result in the annihilation of much of humanity.”

[I include this comment even though I have been generally surprised by Baker’s writing since he left his Wall Street Journal post.  He has been almost uniformly critical of Biden, thus appearing to long for the days of Donald Trump.]

Administration officials and Democrat lawmakers said last weekend that Biden’s off-the-cuff remark was an emotional response to the president’s interactions in Warsaw with refugees — some of whom had fled violence in Mariupol, a Ukrainian southern port city under weekslong Russian bombardment and attacks on civilians.

For his part, Biden chose not to apologize.  He said his comments were an “expression of moral outrage,” not an expression of formal U.S. policy.

Forgive me, for a moment, as I reflect on my own professional life, which, obviously, was not advising presidents, but was advising clients in Oregon and the region.

If they were preparing to testify at the Oregon Legislature or submit to a major media interview, I regularly advised them to develop a script, then stick to it.  I called it “message discipline.” 

I also practiced the discipline myself as I prepared to speak to legislators, editors, or reporters.  Script notes were especially critical when I handled media relations for Oregon’s prison system or when I represented the State of Oregon in negotiations with its public employee unions.  Same with testimony to Oregon legislators.

Here’s the tension:

• Some argue for candor and transparency, which sounds good, but can create trouble for any speaker who wants to deliver a message, when that speaker may not be good at off-the-cuff riffs.
• Others argue for staying on a message to make a point, emphasize it, and not deflect from it by straying off subject.

Which is right?

Depends on your bias.  Mine is this:  Practice message discipline unless you are good at ad-libbing, including with a recognition of the potential future consequences of any candid remark.

Back to Biden.  I am glad he is in the White House instead of his predecessor, Donald Trump, whose stock-in-trade was going off-script, even though there was probably not a script in the first place.  He usually refused to use notes for interviews or a teleprompter for his speeches.  So, it would be impossible to say he was going off-script because there was no script..

Overall, at the risk of appearing to advise a president, I contend Biden should stay on message – stick with a script –because ad-libbing gets him in trouble.  Us, too.

ANOTHER FORAY THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DESERT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

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 spent far too much time lately in the health care system in the California desert.

Too much time, but, insofar as I know, quality care.

Which is saying something.

Two issues lately:

• A couple weeks ago I came down with what appeared to be — and was — vertigo, an imbalance that, at one time or another, affects about 40 per cent of the U.S. population.

• Then, as vertigo symptoms stabilized, I got hit with a golf ball for the first time in my golfing life.  And the hit was on the head.

Here is far more detail on these two issues than anyone wants to know – but, along the way of this recitation, I will insert a few public policy points about health care.  Perhaps the latter justifies another blog post about me.

VERTIGO

When it first struck late one night, I had no idea what it was.  Reviewing quality on-line health care information the next day suggested it was vertigo.  And medical professionals confirmed the diagnosis.

It was interesting to learn that the suggested treatment for vertigo – at least a form of the ailment that stems from ear canal problems – is physical therapy.  Treatments are designed to send what are called “crystals” in the ears back to their appointed spot rather than staying in the dislodged spot.

Incredible!

In their proper spot, the crystals deliver information to the brain to maintain balance.  Out of their proper spot, dizziness results.

I feel compelled to add this question, which stems from my Christianity:  Who but God could have designed such a system?

A GOLF BALL INJURY

While still undergoing treatment for vertigo, the golf ball struck. 

It could have far worse.  Only a few inches of difference in a landing spot on my head could have meant disaster.

As it was, doctors in an urgent care center and an emergency room (both part of the Eisenhower Health Care System named after the former president) treated me, including with steri-strips and a CAT Scan.  The latter was important:  It showed that there was no internal damage.

A few impressions about this foray through the urgent and emergent health care systems in the California desert:

• Doctors and medical staffs were friendly and well-organized.

• In the emergency room, it appeared they had to deal with a range of issues, some of them perhaps not emergent, but still important.

• In a large waiting room, there were about 50 patients waiting for treatment.  If they were like me, they were put through what I would label a “non-emergent triage system,” with the following stops:  In the emergency room itself where vital signs were taken; into another smaller room where a physician talked with the patients; then into another room for more vital sign tests and conversations with a physician assistant; then, for me, a trip to the CAT Scan room; then back to the waiting room; and, then, finally, a visit with the physician assistant who said the scan was clear.

• It also was interesting to note the range of persons in the large waiting room.  Many were in wheelchairs.  Several had blankets over themselves because the air conditioning system was on to offset outside temperatures which exceeded 90 degrees.

• Without knowing anything about those in the waiting room, it struck me that it might be more appropriate for some of them to seek care from a primary care physician, given that dire emergencies did not appear to exist.  Of course, these individuals might not have access to primary care, so turned to the ER – and that is a typical situation in many cities around the country as emergency rooms can be the first choice for general care.

• Persons accompanying patients were not allowed to stay in the waiting room, though it was large enough to accommodate all.  This could have been, I suppose, a nod to continuing to control Covid exposure, but it meant that family members had to stand outside in the hot temperatures or wait in their cars.

In the end, the foray took me most of the day.  But, the final result was good. 

So, onward and upward, both to controlling vertigo and getting back on the golf course.

ANOTHER ONE FOR THE “IRRITATING RULES OF GOLF” BOOK

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.

Let me get back for a moment to something I know, or at least think I know – the rules of golf.

I do so after writing a couple posts on the Supreme Court confirmation “process” – if what happened could be called a “process” – for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Some Republicans turned the process into political theater as they competed for leading roles on stage and before TV camers.  Some of them were preening for a run for president in 2024. 

Stupid.  Unenlightened.  Bad form.  Not surprising for folks like Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham who always seek the limelight, no matter the damage they inflict.

So, on to the rules of golf.

A case in the second round of the Dell Technologies Match Play tournament for pro golfers prompts this blog.

Here’s now the Southern California Golf Association described the incident in its on-line report:

“The Rules of Golf, they giveth and they taketh away.  And sometimes, the rules are so weird that they do both.  Wednesday provided one of those bizarre instances at the WGC-Match Play, at Austin Country Club, in Texas.  Bryson DeChambeau benefitted.  Thomas Pieters did not.

“Thomas Pieters was 3 up when his second shot on the par-4 13th came to rest on top of a sprinkler head, positioned just off the green and just inside of the water hazard line.  The sprinkler head was so close to the hazard line that the red paint actually crossed over the edge of the head.  

“The preciseness of it was important.

“Pieters’ ball, resting on the sprinkler, cozied up against the red-painted grass.  Since it was touching the hazard line, it was deemed to be ‘in the hazard.’  

“The Rules of Golf took over from there, and Pieters was forced to take a penalty drop from the hazard or play his ball from the sprinkler head.  He chopped it back into play, technically, but it was moot at that point.  Tom Hoge (his opponent) had made his birdie, and Pieters lost the hole without getting free relief.  [Still, in the end, Pieters won the match.]

“Not two hours later, DeChambeau found himself in essentially the exact same scenario in his match against Richard Bland.  After his second shot rolled and rolled and rolled through the green, it dropped down into the depression of the sprinkler, right up against the hazard, just as Pieters’ ball had.”

Then, to their credit, rules officials corrected the mistake by allowing DeChambeau free relief, something it could do in match play.  It couldn’t have been done in stroke play because the action would have benefited one player, not the entire field.

It was interesting for me to note that the rules official involved – including on TV – was Craig Winter.  He moved to the national scene from Oregon several years ago where he had been director of junior golf for the Oregon Golf Association.  Nationally, has won plaudits for his knowledge of the rules of golf.

Essentially, this time around, Winters decided that two wrongs didn’t make a right.  After being called in for a closer look, he clarified that the painted line was incorrectly positioned, and that DeChambeau was entitled to free relief.

It was a quick and solid decision made under the heat of the moment.  But, as quick as it was, that didn’t make it any less confusing.

To avoid any further confusion moving forward, Winter even came in to erase the red paint crossing the sprinkler head and cover it up with some green paint.

The summary is that, (a) rules officials made a mistake in setting up the course with the red line partially covering a sprinkler head, and (b) rules officials — specifically, the official involved, Craig Winter – made an immediate correction.

All good news for those of us who like golf rules.  Well, almost good news.  By “almost,” I mean that the issue should not have arisen in the first place.  If your golf ball is in a sprinkler head depression, regardless of where the penalty red line is, free relief should be provided.

There.  I feel better now.  I have written again about golf rules to help set the record straight.

One of the readers of this blog will feel better, too.

THE CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR JUDGE JACKSON: A SOUR, DEFLATING EXPERIENCE, ALBEIT WITH AN EXCELLENT NOMINEE

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.

Over the last few days, I have watched a lot of hours of the confirmation proceedings for Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson as she has been nominated for elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It has not been a process that instills hope in those of us who have worked in politics over the years. 

Rather it is more political theater as various actors work hard to take center stage.  Most of them are Republicans who may not support Judge Jackson’s appointment, but, beyond that, have turned the process into a charade.  If I was a ticket buyer for this piece of political theater, I would want my money back!

Still and all, it appears Judge Jackson’s nomination is on the way to approval in the Senate, if only with 51 votes, though it remains possible that two or three Republicans will sign on.  Her performance during her confirmation hearing this week has been impressive for its restraint and general grace.

Truth be told, various commentators agree with me on the debitsd of the process for Judge Jackson – or, better put, I agree with them.

FROM DAN BALZ IN THE WASHINGTON POST

“Supreme Court confirmation hearings have become predictable, more performative politics than honest inquiry. There are still moments of rigorous questioning and intellectual discussion about the court and cases and judicial philosophy.  But partisanship rules the hearing room — as it rules so much else — and few if any votes are likely to be changed by the exchanges between senators and Jackson.

“Senators play to various audiences, and the hearings offer a convenient platform for them to position themselves for the future.  It’s clear that, for those like (senators) Cruz, Hawley and others, the people they are trying to reach are conservative voters who might be attracted to them if they run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

“Given that environment, the guiding principle for any nominee is:  First, do no harm. That’s been Jackson’s approach this week. She has been careful and generally constrained throughout, offering her methodology as a jurist rather than stating a philosophy and at times couching her approach to her role as a judge in conservative language.”

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN, ALSO IN THE POST

“Let’s also acknowledge the obvious:  Cruz, Hawley and other Republicans operate as content providers for right-wing media, generating clips designed to upset and anger the MAGA base. They are competing to be the most aggressive in anticipation of possible presidential runs.

“The media in particular fails to convey the visual image of angry White men screaming and interrupting a Black woman, who dares not show anger for fear of being labeled unprofessional or lacking the correct temperament.  Combined with the insinuations about her “softness” on child pornography and thehysterics on critical race theory, the aggression barely masked the Republican outpouring of White grievance.”

FROM CHARLES BLOW IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

“Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominees have long drifted into the realm of inconsequential theater.

“Rarely is there any true attempt to discern nominees’ qualifications for the job, or what might disqualify them.  Since President George W. Bush got slapped down for nominating his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, presidents have, for the most part, been careful to ensure that nominees have defensible — and often exemplary — pedigrees.

“At the same time, the confirmation process has devolved into a petty partisan exercise.  The party with the most votes in the Senate will get its way, regardless of what the hearings may reveal.”

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

“This week’s events provided a platform for senators to harp on their favorite issues, and to slap back at colleagues for past slights, with Jackson ‘relegated to bystander.’   Republican senators used the opportunity to settle scores.  Asking senators not to grandstand is, of course, like asking a river to run uphill.  But although these moments don’t tell us much about what kind of justice Jackson might be, they are useful for showing just how angry many Republicans remain about Democrats’ treatment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

CONCLUSION

Confirmation processes for U.S. Supreme Court justice nominees used to be about such facts as judicial qualifications, legal scholarship, and temperament. 

Today, they have become acts in a play almost unrelated to credentials.  They have taken on the form of soapboxes for obnoxious senators who hijack the process for their own ends.  As one columnist put it, “Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee preen, posture, and hurl red meat at their supporters.”

Or another:  “In the end, the allure of media attention coupled with the strong gravitational pull of the right fringe of their party proved too much for many Republicans to resist.”

It’s time for such over-the-top processes to end.  If the motive is to get even for the last slight, this will never end.

I wish for a return to political sanity. 

Senator Cory Booker got there this week when he cut through Republican ugliness to celebrate Judge Jackson for her rise against racism, as well as her personal restraint and grace under pressure.

THE EPITOME OF DUPLICITY: SENATOR TED CRUZ

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.

Once in awhile, a political column comes along that is worth reprinting here in its entirety.

Such an occasion occurs this morning.

The subject is duplicity, which is defined by the dictionary as “deceitfulness; double-dealing.”

It would be just as accurate for the dictionary to define the word with a photo of Texas Senator Ted Cruz.  He epitomizes the word and does so with a look of seriousness on his face that suggests he thinks he always is the smartest person in the room.

To verify this, look no farther than a column by Washington Post writer Dana Milbank, which was published yesterday.  Using persuasive evidence, he skewers Cruz for his duplicitous role in the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Two main examples of Cruz duplicity:  (a) When, to avoid safeguards in the Covid pandemic, he left Texas to go on vacation with his family in Cancun, then was caught trying to come back under the radar; and (b) now, as he accuses Judge Jackson of complicity with his definition of “critical race theory” given her position on private school board in Washington, D.C. that includes an anti-racism curricula, even as his own children attend a private school in Texas with nearly identical course content.

So, read on today to see more on the “epitome of duplicity” – Senator Ted Cruz.

**********

Senator Ted Cruz seldom overlooks a chance to be underhanded, and, sure enough, the Texas Republican led the effort to imbue this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings with the latest effort by the right to make White America fear Black America.

Cruz attempted to tie Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the high court, to the supposed menace of “critical race theory” — because, he said, this theory is taught at the private school where she serves on the board (and where she sent her daughters).

“If you look at the Georgetown Day School’s curriculum, it is filled and overflowing with critical race theory,” Cruz alleged, holding up books he said the school has on reading lists, including “Stamped (for Kids): Racism, Antiracism and You,” by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds.

“It is an astonishing book,” charged Cruz, who had found it ‘offensive’ that President Biden had promised to nominate a Black woman to the court.  “On Page 33, it asks the question, ‘Can we send White people back to Europe?’ … Are you comfortable with these ideas being taught to children as young as 4?”

Georgetown Day School, in the nation’s capital, does indeed take a strong “anti-racism” approach.  So does St. John’s School, the private school in Houston where, as the New Republic’s Timothy Noah noted, Cruz sends his daughters.

As the headmaster and chair of the board of trustees at St. John’s put it in 2020:  ‘Black lives matter. … St. John’s, as an institution, must be anti-racist and eliminate racism of any type — including institutional racism.’

To its credit, the school has vowed to continue to ‘ensure that diversity, equity and inclusion are foundational aspects of our educational program, and to ‘incorporate cultural proficiency, diversity, global awareness, and inclusivity into all facets of the K-12 curricula.’

A St. John’s class called ‘Issues of Justice and Equity in the Twenty-First Century’ is labeled a ‘Critical Race Training Course’ by the right-wing Legal Insurrection Foundation.

And there in the St. John’s library catalog is — wait for it — Kendi’s ‘Stamped (for Kids),’ the very book Cruz demanded Jackson account for at Georgetown Day School.  Cruz’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Hypocrisy is in bountiful supply before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.  Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, for example, has led an attack on Jackson for being soft on pedophiles, though he had no problem approving Trump nominees who, like Jackson (and most judges), sentenced certain child-pornography offenders to below-guideline prison terms.

But Cruz has a particular skill for saying one thing and doing another.  He repeatedly criticized other officials for vacationing during crises — then hopped a plane to Cancún to avoid a devastating winter storm in Texas. Now, Cruz (fresh from an altercation with airline officials in Montana during which security had to be called) scolds the disgraceful behavior’ of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee — while constantly interrupting, hectoring and sneering.

Cruz apparently was untroubled that Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican critic of critical race theory, sat on the board of National Cathedral School which, like GDS, has an active anti-racism program; Cruz endorsed Youngkin in the primary.

But Jackson’s status as a member of the board of GDS got the full Cruz treatment, with posters and books for props on the dais. He mocked Kendi’s ‘Antiracist Baby,’ which he said is taught at GDS, demanding of Jackson:  ‘Do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids [at GDS] that the babies are racist?’

But at his own daughters’ school, the chair of the school’s committee on ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging’ speaks about teaching faculty and parents about ‘antiracism.’  The school, she said, was also contemplating an educational series on ‘cultural competency, race thought and inclusion.’

The school’s inclusion is not just about race:  The school held a ‘Banned Books Week’ that highlighted offerings about gender identity, LGBTQ issues and sex education that are now under fire from social conservatives.

During the racial-justice protests of 2020, the St. John’s headmaster recommended as a ‘resource’ to the school community Beverly Daniel Tatum, identified by the right-wing outlet Federalist as a ‘critical race theory (CRT) activist’ and ‘author of several left-wing manifestos on race relations.’

Cruz, in his attack on Jackson, also scolded her for once referencing the ‘provocative thesis’ of Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project. Cruz said the work, ‘closely intertwined’  with critical race theory, had been ‘thoroughly refuted.’  He demanded of Jackson:  ‘Do you agree with Ms. Hannah-Jones?’

Maybe Cruz should ask his kids’ school that question.  Among the offerings in the St. John’s library, along with “How to be an Anti-Racist” and three other volumes by Kendi, is “The 1619 Project.”

ACTIVITY FOR A POLITICAL JUNKIE LIKE ME: WATCHING THE SUPREME COURT NOMINATION PROCESS FOR JUDGE JACKSON

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.

Regular readers of this blog – both of them – know that I am a political junkie. 

I relish the experience of watching government in action.  However, these days, that activity comes with a growing awareness of how far American government has fallen from producing the best for the country.  Often, it produces dissension, disagreement, and antagonism.

So it was that, for the last three days, I have returned home from playing golf to watch the Senate confirmation for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

So far, she has had to endure three full days of comments by senators on the Judiciary Committee.  Republicans there have impugned her character in ways that illustrate they want to “get even” with Democrats for how members of that party were alleged to have trashed the reputations of previous nominees for the Supreme Court proposed by Republican presidents.

Note at least one problem with the “get even” strategy.  It continues forever.  There is always another chance to get even.

As Judge Jackson prepares for more time in the hot seat, here are a few perceptions from me about what has gone on so far – and, remember, as I write this, I have no specific experience in confirmations for justices of the Supreme Court. 

[In the spirit of full disclosure, I have sat for confirmations in Oregon when I have been nominated for positions on State Commissions, but that, to put it mildly, is in no way comparable to what we are seeing in Washington, D.C.]

• On Tuesday, topics aired included her decisions on child-pornography cases, the abortion-rights precedent in Roe v. Wade, her sentiment on the academic concept known as “critical race theory,” and whether her judicial philosophy reflected a will to re-make the law in ways that go beyond the Constitution as understood when drafted.

• According to the Wall Street Journal, she “treaded carefully” around attempts by Texas Senator John Cornyn to pin her down on whether she would seek to expand existing federal rights by deciding that some rights were implied in the Constitution.  She said that, under Supreme Court precedents, “the kinds of things that qualify are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or are deeply rooted in our country’s history and tradition.”

As an aside, it was interesting to note how Cornyn phrased his questions for the nominee.  Rather than asking a question, he usually started this way – “would you agree with me that….”  Judge Jackson managed to avoid falling into that trap, declining to align herself with Cornyn’s words.

• Democrats’ first order of business was to give Judge Jackson a platform to rebut allegations first made by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who on Monday criticized her for imposing what he alleged were a series of lenient criminal sentences against child-pornography offenders.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Judge Jackson.  A mother of two daughters, she said she had properly applied the relevant statute. “That statute doesn’t say ‘impose the highest possible penalty for this sickening and egregious crime,’” she said.

• Then, Texas Senator Ted Cruz got into the act.  He pressed Judge Jackson on “critical race theory,” which is an academic theory that holds the legacy of white supremacy remains embedded in modern society through laws and institutions that were fundamental in shaping America.

Judge Jackson did a good job of parrying Cruz’ thrust, which, of course, coming from him, sounds more like an appeal to White supremacy than anything else. 

For my part, having looked recently at descriptions of “critical race theory,” I don’t align myself with the any political interest group that has rallied around or against the phrase.  I believe, however, that it is right and just to look at history, as well as current events, with a candid eye to view racist impulses, intentional or unintentional.

All of us are at risk of having subtle tendencies to view races other than our own with incorrect assumptions, perceptions, or biases.  Being alert for them is important.

• The ”get even” impulse arose when South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham claimed that Democrats had previously smeared Amy Coney Barrett — who was nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump — over her Catholic religion, and said he was so angry that Biden had passed over Judge Michelle Childs of South Carolina for the post that he was having trouble with the current nomination.

Overall, Judge Jackson, after three days of being in the hot seat, appears to be able to see the best in America.  In one speech several years ago, she invoked Martin Luther King, Jr. to describe how her family had risen from deep poverty.

From the Wall Street Journal:  “The fact that we had come this far, was, to me, a testament to the hope and the promise of this country, the greatness of America, that in one generation — one generation — we could go from racially segregated schools in Florida, to have me sitting here as the first Floridian ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Among my many blessings — and indeed, the very first — is the fact that I was born in this great country.  The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known.”

I say, take Judge Jackson at her word, give her credit for her legal credentials and elevate her to the Supreme Court where she belongs.

SCRATCHING AND CLAWING FOR A BLOG POST

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

Here in La Quinta, California, I spend many of my days on the golf course.

A good life, one I look forward to every day.  After golf in the morning, I return to a good afternoon with my wife, who encourages my golf, and my dog, Callaway (yes, I named my golf clubs after him) who adores me no matter my golf score.

Then, on occasion, I write a blog post, as is the case this morning when I scratch and claw for a topic or topics.

So it was that I came across several quotes from newspapers and magazines I read on-line that caught my attention.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  The newspaper wrote this:   “A number of Republican senators have raised concerns about some aspects of Judge Jackson’s record on criminal justice, including her record on sentencing and her work as an assistant federal public defender.”

Now, as we continue to watch Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

endure a Senate confirmation hearing, my focus went, inexplicably, to the word “have” in the sentence above.

The word should have been “has.”  I know it sounds bad, but, if you rely on accurate word choices in our language, English, the verb is supposed to agree with the subject.  The subject was singular – “a number.”  Therefore, the verb would be singular, as well — “has.”

There.  I told you that I have too much time on my hands in La Quinta.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:  Opinion columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a thoughtful piece on the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson.

One of her sentences:

“But now we are reduced to this kind of smarm from the Republican National Committee, recycling Hawley. “

What I noted here was the use of the word “smarm.”

The dictionary says the word hearkens to Britain and means this:  “To behave in an ingratiating way in order to gain favor.”

With Marcus, this sounds just like Republican senators who reflect great discredit on themselves by distorting Judge Jackson’s record – engaging “in an ingratiating way to gain favor.”  And, what’s more, some of them want to run for president.

FROM GOLFWEEK MAGAZINE:   The magazine wrote last week about Greg Norman, the former professional golfer who has aligned himself with the Saudi regime to develop a new pro golf tour, which he hopes will compete against the PGA Tour.

“Since he is clearly bereft of shame,” the magazine writes about Norman, “let’s assume it was out of respect that Norman waited three days after Saudi Arabia executed 81 men for such crimes as ‘deviant beliefs’ to unveil a schedule for LIV Golf Invitational.”  (That’s the name of a tournament series Norman proposes.)

He announced that June 9-11 in London will see the first event in the LIV Golf Invitational.  The second tournament is planned for July 1-3 at Oregon’s Pumpkin Ridge, whose members were simultaneously hit with a dues increase to upgrade facilities and news that they’ve been conscripted into a sports-washing exercise.

For my part, as an Oregonian, I cannot believe that Pumpkin Ridge agreed to host this event.

And, these postscripts:

• I refuse to watch the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson.  She appears to have a sterling record as a jurist and that no doubt will be on display again in the next couple days.  But it will be too much for me to watch Republican senators preen for the cameras.

• Speaking of the confirmation hearings, late night host Jimmy Kimmel had a great line last night when he suggested that Republican senators should have nightmares as they recognize that the future of the Supreme Court could be decided by two Black women – Judge Jackson and Vice President Kamala Harris (who would cast the deciding vote for Jackson in the Senate if the confirmation ends up tied).

• I continue to hope that pro golfer Phil Mickelson will find a way to redeem his reputation after he sided with the Saudi terrorists.  The most recent news is that Mickelson will not play in the Masters Tournament, a major he has won three times.  Thus, his “pause” will continue from golf to work on his reputation.

• I continue to try to recover from bouts of vertigo, but was interested to note yesterday that pro golfer Jason Day suffers from the same ailment.  Perhaps two golfers – one great one, Day…and one mediocre one, me – can recover lost balance.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY: A BUMPER CROP OF REPUBLICANS WANT TO BE GOVERNOR…NONE IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED, BUT WATCH FOR THE INDEPENDENT

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Oregonian newspaper story reported this yesterday:

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

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

OREGON GOVERNOR RACE HOLDS POTENTIAL TO BE A BARN-BURNER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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