TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS

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 other day, the golf course where I play (Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon) was closed to allow a group of non-members to play the course.

No problem with that, usually.  After all, it’s part of our responsibility as a private golf club.  Offer the course as a site for other golfers and, who knows, at some point, one of the non-members might want to join.

But, with too much time on my hands without golf, I thought of this:

If you want to identify a day of good weather, choose a day when Illahe Hills is closed to members.  There is little doubt but that the sun will be out on that day.

Now, regarding whether Illahe should be closed to members or not, here are the principles I apply:

• If there is an outside group, members of that group – or the group itself – should be charged for the right to play the course, which is one of the best in the region.  In such cases, the course should make at least a little money.

• Illahe golf course managers should be careful about closing the course for multiple days in a row.  After all, those who pay for membership should not be frozen off the course for days in a row.

• Illahe should demonstrate its commitment to community citizenship by offering the course once or twice a year to charities without charging full fare, or perhaps even nothing.  The Salem-Keizer community is important enough for this to be done.

See, now, with too much time on my hands, isn’t that an enlightened view?

MORE ON GUN CONTROL…ER…GUN SAFETY BECAUSE “WORDS MATTER”

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 took a risk the other day and wrote about gun control, a risk, not because I don’t favor aggressive gun control – I do – but because the challenge of controlling guns seems impossible, even after the tragic Uvalde shooting.

Many Republicans just refuse to consider reasonable gun control, no more obvious that former president Donald Trump and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz who had the temerity to appear at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association (NRA) only days after Uvalde and only a couple hundred miles away from the site of the tragedy.

They argued, of course, against gun control.

I also was chagrined to note that likely unaffiliated candidate for Oregon governor, Betsy Johnson, took to the podium at a meeting of TEDxPortland, a non-profit organization, to tout her opposition to gun control.  [The organization, by the way, came under criticism for appearing to violate its non-profit status by hosting Johnson, a political figure.]

She drew jeers and boos for her position and, frankly, I, a retired lobbyist, had forgotten Johnson’s votes against gun control.  I hope she reconsiders her blanket opposition in light of Uvalde, which adds to the spate of gun tragedies in this country.

But, by contrast, here’s just a bit of good news.

In the Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker made this argument:

“Several things can be done that could reduce the bloodshed:  Deeper background checks; ‘red-flag’ laws allowing law enforcement officers with a court order to seize guns from someone considered a danger to themselves or others; closing gun show loopholes; and maybe banning kids from buying assault weapons.  All of these would help.”

Then, Parker made another great point, especially for me, a person who likes words and often says that “words matter.”

“As a first step,” Parker wrote, “we should change the name of the mission from gun control to gun safety.  ‘Control’ is a trigger for resistance when safety is what we’re really talking about.

“Words matter.  Maybe some people could be more open to compromise and change if they weren’t immediately put on the defensive.”

Parker goes on to contend that “the predictable constitutional arguments, meanwhile, have become offensive.  Yes, the Founding Fathers were concerned about another British invasion, and made it possible for early colonists to arm themselves in defense of their country.

“But those who wrote the Second Amendment in the 18th century could not have envisioned how their perfectly reasonable intentions would be distorted 235 years later — or how 18-year-olds would be able to buy and carry assault weapons meant for a modern battlefield into grade-school classrooms.

“There’s a galaxy of difference between a musket and an AR-15.  It’s time to remove these instruments of mass murder from the marketplace once and for all.

“We might not stop the next massacre, but we can stop making it so easy.”

Parker is right.

I am not competent to analyze the depths of how the Second Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted in this country, but I am competent to repeat its brief text:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, 235 years after the words were drafted, let’s limit the “right to bear the arms” to those who can be called “militia.”  Reasonable?  Yes.

GUN SAFETY matters!

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy agrees, even as his voice rises with emotion and incredulity:

“What are we doing?” he asks his colleagues.   “Why do you go through all the hassle of getting this job, of putting yourself in a position of authority if the answer is to do nothing as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives?”

A PRESCRIPTION FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT

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 other day, as he signed off as a full-time journalist after 29 years at the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib offered a prescription for better government.

I found his ideas to constitute solid advice.

Here is what he suggested:

• An outbreak of political courage.  Specifically, the country needs the emergence of more lawmakers from both parties who are willing to risk their jobs by reaching out to the other side, and to take steps that displease the most extreme elements of their own base.  Such leaders are in depressingly short supply.

• Actual steps to revive the political center, starting with dramatic actions to curtail gerrymandering.  Both parties have taken brazen actions at the state level to redraw congressional districts into uncompetitive sinecures, thereby empowering those on the ideological wings.

• A bi-partisan agreement on the rules for casting and counting votes, taking election integrity off the table as a divisive issue.  Both sides are wholly dependent on confidence in the system that brought them to office. If, as seems likely, power in Washington is to be shared by the two parties after this fall’s mid-term elections, they will have an equal stake in the soundness of the system, and the moment to end this corrosive argument could be at hand.

• A decision by voters across the spectrum to reward rather than punish responsible behavior and compromise.  Voters aren’t powerless; politicians respond to the signals they send.

As an aside here, I was sorry to see that Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader lost his seat in the recent election.  Apparently, he was not liberal enough for voters – or at least for his opponent.  As a centrist, Schrader functioned like a member of Congress should – he didn’t follow order from anyone as he made up his mind.  He will be missed in Congress.

Regarding my initial blog commending Seib’s advice, one of my good friends read what I originally wrote and wondered if Republicans weren’t more at fault than Democrats for attempting to use election processes to achieve desired results – results even different voter preferences.

Point made. 

This friend may be right, especially if you look at the last major election when then-President Donald Trump and ilk among Republicans tried to overturn voter preferences.

And, they are still at it, though a piece of good news is that Trump failed in Georgia where the governor he opposed and the Secretary of State he opposed both won.

With all due respect to my friend – and I mean respect in a genuine way – I prefer to call on both sides, both Republicans and Democrats, to display more reason and courage in elected office.  There is room for improvement on both sides and it is not an exaggeration to say that our form of democracy is literally at stake.

We need elected officials to strive to find the center, even as they express their views from the right or the left.  Such should be the definition of politics.  Arguing for points-of-view, then trying hard to negotiate toward agreement.

It was John F. Kennedy who said something like this:  “We should not work to find the Republican or Democrat answer.  We should work to find the right answer.  We should not to try to find blame for the past.  We should work to identify the best future.”

That doesn’t sound like politics today, does it?

As a solution, or at least a partial one because there are no magic answers, we should try Seib’s prescription and hope for the cure to what ails us.

FOR THE NRA AND TRUMP, THE SHOW MUST GO ON IN TEXAS

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 was going to write this morning about gun control legislation, asking why political leaders in America continue to avoid dealing with an incredible problem – citizens can get “long guns” (read AK-47) and, then, do what the 18-year-old did in Uvalde, which is to kill 21 people.

Then, I read a column by Michelle Cottle, a member of the editorial board of the New York Times.

It was an excellent piece of work, so much so that I decided to reprint it in my blog, with appropriate credit to her as she wrote on the occasion – and this is an incredible fact – of the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Texas.  Yes, in an irony almost too stunning to grasp, in Texas, only a couple hundred miles away from Uvalde.

So, without further ado, here is Cottle.

In times of tragedy, Americans often look to their elected leaders for comfort.  For understanding.  For the dangled scrap of hope that things will get better.

In the wake of Tuesday’s mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, how are Republican leaders rising to meet this raw moment, with 19 children dead and a community shattered?  They are once again leaning into their role as the American Carnage Party, where the only solution to shootings is more guns.

And in a sign that it’s never “too soon” to glorify guns after a slaughter, some are gathering at the altar of the gun lobby in, of all places, Houston — less than 300 miles from the slaughter — to wallow in that orgy of gun fetishism known as the National Rifle Association’s annual convention.

Former President Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota are among the party players set to speak on Friday.  Governor Greg Abbott of Texas was scheduled to attend, but it was reported Thursday evening that he would instead be addressing the convention via a pre-recorded video.

The GOP cannot afford to put much distance between itself and the gun lobby — and not simply because of the huge wads of cash that the NRA has stuffed into the party’s coffers over the years.  Increasingly, the party of Trump is about nothing more than ginning up fear and paranoia among its members, of peddling apocalyptic notions that civilization is on the brink of destruction, and that armed conflict is just over the horizon.

The gun lobby’s message and agenda gibe perfectly with this vision; indeed, nurture it.  It is hard to think of a more suitable partner for Republicanism in its current sorry state.

For Trump, who never misses a chance to be fawned over, the show must always go on.  The former president, in fact, suggested that his speech Friday would be vital to the healing process.  “America needs real solutions and real leadership in this moment, not politicians and partisanship,” he asserted, without a speck of irony. “That’s why I will keep my longtime commitment” and “deliver an important address to America.”

Also in the category of Irony Is Dead:  During that “important address,” organizers warned in advance, the Secret Service would be taking control of the hall and all guns, ammo, firearm accessories, knives, and other scary items — including laser pointers and selfie sticks — would be prohibited.

Some Democrats expressed outrage and dismay that the convention was proceeding, so painfully close to Uvalde in both time and distance.  There were calls for the event to be canceled or moved and for political leaders not to participate.  The president of the NAACP specifically urged Abbott to skip the gathering.  So did Beto O’Rourke, the former Democrat congressman now challenging Abbott for governor.

Back in 1999, in response to the Columbine massacre, the NRA scaled back its convention, which took place a few days later nearby in Denver.  But that meager concession took place during a different era, when the group and its political handmaidens still feared public backlash. There’s no way today’s NRA would bother disrupting its biggest party of the year — although it has vowed to use the gathering to “reflect on these events, pray for the victims, recognize our patriotic members and redouble our commitment to making our schools secure.”

Thoughts and prayers. They do the trick every time.

Practically speaking, the NRA desperately needs this weekend’s extravaganza to roll on largely as planned.  The group has had a rough few years.  After breaking the bank getting Trump elected in 2016, it has been plagued by infighting, scandal, legal troubles, and the ongoing threat of financial ruin.

This year’s convention was on track to be a moment of regrouping, maybe even a turning point, for the organization.  With an unpopular Democrat president in the White House and public anxiety raging over violent crime and immigration, the climate is ideal for whipping the fear factor to new heights — for really selling folks on the idea that what every American needs is the protection of a good gun.  Or several.

The Uvalde tragedy made the convention trickier from a PR standpoint, but the political fundamentals remain promising for the gun lobby.

To grasp the deep resonance of this American Carnage message in certain circles, it helps to understand what it’s like to grow up in the gun-culture bubble — in families and communities who believe that more firearms equal more safety.  People outside this world often cannot fathom such an equation.  With frustration bordering on fury, they point to studies and data suggesting that owning a gun is more likely to result in the death of a loved one — or oneself — than in the successful defense against an assailant or intruder.

But facts and figures can’t compete with the gut-level craving for a sense of control over one’s surroundings and fate.  Consider the difference between people’s attitudes toward flying and driving a car.  Statistically, the latter is far more dangerous.  But air travel tends to unsettle or even terrify people more, in part because of the feeling that they have no control over the situation.

With driving, by contrast, people tell themselves that they are masters of their surroundings, that they will always have the skill, sense, and panther-like reflexes to avoid a collision.  Even really awful drivers believe this.

Plenty of gun owners operate with an even stronger delusion of being the exception to the rule — the singular driver in perfect control, if you will. They send friends and family members news stories about the rare instances in which an armed citizen took down an intruder or potential assailant.  They tell themselves that, in a situation like Uvalde — or Buffalo or Parkland or Las Vegas or Pittsburgh or El Paso — they would be the one to beat the odds, to emerge not just unscathed but quite possibly a hero.

Plenty of Republican politicians, steeped in gun culture, may sympathize with or even wholeheartedly embrace this delusion.  Others are gross opportunists looking to stoke people’s primal fears — and rake in big money from gun groups — in the service of their own ambitions.  (It is hard to believe that the nakedly grasping Cruz, for instance, does anything for any reason other than his own political gain.)

A smattering of both kinds of officials will be on display in Houston this weekend.  It is hard to say which is more dangerous, and on some level it hardly matters.  The tragic outcome, the continued failure to rationally address America’s deadly gun crisis, is the same.

AN ILLUSTRATION OF ULTIMATE DUPLICITY ON GUNS

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.

Why do I feel I should add my comment to what happened the other day in Uvalde, Texas.  A gunman mowed down 21 people, most of them students at a middle school in the small Texas town.

The first question:  Why can’t Americans of goodwill and good intent – yes, there are some around, but, apparently, not enough in Congress to spur action — find a way to get guns out of the hands of people who use them to kill. 

In case after case, we are sacrificing our kids and, of all things, while they are in school.

But, rather than comment on the basic gun control issue, my goal this morning is to call out a case of duplicity.  Not surprisingly, it involves Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a master of the art.

If you checked a dictionary for the term duplicity, there, I submit, you would find a photo of Cruz.

In the immediate aftermath of the horrific shooting, Cruz thought he should get into the act.

So, he went on Twitter to make one good point and one ironic point.

First, on the good side, he noted that he and his wife were praying for the children and families affected by the incident.  I hope he was being honest.  It’s what many politicians say after a gun tragedy, then beyond the “good words,” most of them do nothing.

Then, second and unfortunately, Cruz went on to express his disdain about any legislation to control guns.  Plus, in irony, he pilloried Democrats for “politicizing” the issue.

“You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.  That doesn’t work.  That’s not effective.  It doesn’t prevent crime.”

To that, he added the “politicization” charge.

Say what?

Politicizing is something Cruz does all the time, no matter the issue.

Better if he would shut up and at least be open to ways to get guns out of the hands of the people – including, in the Texas case, an 18-year-old.

But, asking Cruz to shut up is like asking Donald Trump to do the same.  They cannot. 

And I decline to leave it there this morning.  On the plus side, President Joe Biden put it very well yesterday when he went beyond the usual “we’re praying for you” line.

“To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away.  As a nation, we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?  I am sick and tired of it.  We have to act.  And don’t tell me we can’t have an impact on this carnage.”

Agreed.

WHAT IS THE TYPE OF CANDIDATE FAVORED BY DONALD TRUMP?

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

There is little question but that the answer to the question above is this:  Trump favors celebrity over credentials.

After all, this is what he is, too.  As a narcissist, he looks on himself as the epitome of everything, a so-called “celebrity” who knows all and says all.

But recent election results last showed that just being supported by Trump isn’t always enough for various candidates to win. 

I’ll leave the punditry to those who get paid to write, but I will say this:  I hope Trump continues to recede from the limelight he so craves as other Republicans try to find way to compete for the presidency two years from now.

This perception about Trump – celebrity over credentials – was reinforced for me when I read a piece by Michelle Cottle, a member of the editorial board of the New York Times.

Here is a summary of what she wrote:

“For Trump, the perfect political candidate is one who has no strongly held views of his own.  Whether candidates are in touch with the needs and values of their constituencies is of no interest — and could, in fact, be an inconvenience. 

“Trump clearly prefers a nationalized Republican Party populated by minions willing to blindly follow orders in his unholy crusade for political restoration and vengeance.

“’When you’re a star, they let you do it,’ Trump once vilely bragged of his penchant for groping women. ‘You can do anything.’”

This time around one of the candidates Trump is promoting is Mehmet Oz, a doctor who made his mark by being on TV with so-called cures for everything.  As I write this, it is not yet clear that he has won his race.

“His show is great,” Trump says.  “He’s on that screen.  He’s in the bedrooms of all those women telling them good and bad.  Dr. Oz has had an enormously successful career on TV, and now he’s running to save our country.”

Cottle adds this:

“As political pitches go, this one may sound vague and vacuous and more than a tad creepy.  But Trump was simply cutting to the heart of the matter. Dr. Oz’s chief political asset — arguably his singular asset in this race — is his celebrity.  Beyond that, it is hard to imagine why anyone would consider him for the job, much less take him seriously.”

Beyond Oz, two other candidates opposed by Trump – Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger – prevailed in high-profile races in Georgia.  Both results help to support the notion that Trump endorsement is not the way to victory.

So, why should any of us take Trump seriously?  He has mostly act like a clown, both in and out of political office.  He doesn’t deserve one iota of support.  I say keep and his ilk out of anything in the public domain.

STARTLING STATISTICS

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 couple Sundays ago at our church – Salem Alliance Church – the speaker gave a couple of startling stats about students in the Salem-Keizer School District, Oregon’s second largest.

The context:  The speaker is in charge of our church’s outreach to our neighbors, a task which I report has gone very well over the last 20 years.

More about the stats later.

The goal of our work at Salem Alliance is to illustrate that being in tune with God means reaching out to people where they live and work in order to “earn the right to be heard.”  Several prime examples:

• A group that chops wood – the Order of Red Suspenders — and delivers the results to the home of persons who may be cold in the winter.

• A furniture-making shop – Sparrow Furniture — that provides jobs, often for immigrants, with the results – furniture – donated to persons in need.

• A program for refugees — Salem for Refugees — that started at the church, but has now branched out beyond church walls.  The name says it all – Salem FOR Refugees.  The goal is to reach out to refugees who have arrived in Salem-Keizer, including Afghans and Ukrainians recently, though many other groups before them.

• A medical and dental clinic — Salem Free Clinic – which involves more than 70 churches in the Salem-Keizer area.  They band together to provide services to persons without care – and there are a lot of such persons in the Salem-Keizer area.  The main clinic venue is a building on the site of Salem Alliance Church.

Now, for the starting stats from the Salem-Keizer School District:

• What ethnicity bears the largest proportion of students in the district?  The answer:  Hispanics at 41 per cent.

• What is the total number of languages spoken by students and families connected with the district?  The answer:  88.  Astonishing!

And just think how realities like this require smart management from those in charge of the school district, as well as, even more importantly, teachers.  Of course, the main language spoken inside a school room is English, perhaps with a smattering of Spanish, depending on the teacher.

But, still, Salem-Keizer is today home for a huge population of immigrants. 

I say welcome them with open arms.

It’s an obligation all of us have.  We need to go beyond the images of immigration promoted by various politicians and respond to immigrants and refugees AS PEOPLE in our midst – in our cities, in our region, in our neighborhoods…and in our school district.

AT THE PGA CHAMPIONSHIP, ONE OF MY FAVORITE GOLFERS PROVED WHY HE DESERVES MY ACCLAIM

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.

Justin Thomas never gave in.

That’s the way GolfWeek put it as it analyzed Thomas’ win yesterday in the PGA Championship, his second win in one of golf’s “majors.”

His win and the way he produced it illustrated why he has become one of my favorite professional golfers.

Here is more from GolfWeek:

“Thomas never gave in.  Not when he had to battle a cold, allergies and his swing before the first round began.  Not when he got the worst of the draw the first two days.  Not when his putter let him down in the third round.  Not when he hit a shank early in the final round.

“And not when he faced a seven-shot deficit entering Sunday’s final 18 holes at Southern Hills Country Club.  Make that the final 21 holes.”

Thomas came storming home with four birdies in his last 10 holes in regulation to sign for a 3-under-par 67 to reach 5 under, then birdied the first two extra holes at the par-5 13th and par-4 17th and added a tap-in par on the par-4 final hole to defeat Will Zalatoris by one shot.

His win matched the largest comeback in PGA history.

I like Thomas for a variety of reasons.

First, hee plays well in tough tournaments with difficult weather conditions.  Nowhere was this more evident that in the second round of The Players Championship in Ponte Vedra, Florida earlier this year.

In stiff winds, he hit a number of shots that defied reality.  One was on a par 4 hole when, into a buffeting wind, he hit a low, screaming 3-metal off the tee and into the fairway.

Thomas navigated TPC Sawgrass in 69 strokes without making a single bogey.  On a day when distance mattered less than trajectory, and balls seemed no safer on the ground than in the air, his was a beguiling display of shot-making and creativity in which he hit 14 greens and needed just 29 putts.  There have not been many more impressive rounds played on the PGA Tour this season.

Second, Thomas looks like a typical millennial, but several writers say he is the most old school player in golf.  One of those writers is Eamon Lynch who has followed Thomas for years.  He says Thomas’ upright golf swing is a homage to swings like Seve Ballesteros and Tom Watson.

Upright swings generally hit the golf ball higher and longer and tend to be a little wild from time to time so they come with a dependency on imagination for inevitable difficult recoveries.

Here’s the way Lunch added to the point:

“In some respects, Thomas is just what you’d expect to get if you asked central casting to send over a millennial golfer —j oggers and hoodies, niblick-thin physique, social media playfulness, an easy swagger that is the privilege of youth.  Yet a case can be made that Thomas is the most old school player on the PGA Tour, and Friday at the PGA Championship should be entered into the book of evidence.

“Some of it is attitude, a flinty disposition that prizes grit and abhors quit. There’s plenty of old school in his golf swing too, as experts in that sort of thing will attest.  Mostly, it’s evident in his gleeful embrace of conditions that flummox others, those all-too-rare days that demand imagination work in concert with execution. That’s not a challenge presented often in the weekly grind of the PGA Tour, where courses and the manner in which they are set-up tilt toward the one-dimensional.  That changes if weather becomes a factor.  The worse, the better, at least for Thomas.”

My third point is Thomas was smart enough to hire Jim “Bones” MacKay as his caddy after MacKay was let go by Phil Mickelson, the reasons for which have sparked a lot of speculation.  Whatever the case, McKay now works for Thomas and the two make a great team.

“Prior to this week, MacKay said, “Justin’s two best rounds of the year have been in heavy winds at both the Players and the Masters.  He loves to create in terms of his ball flight.”

Finally, for me, Thomas has etched his name onto the list of likely PGA Hall of Fame entrants.  He has a total of 15 wins on the PGA Tour and, now, two majors.

That should be enough, but the style of Thomas’ play is what draws me to him.

So does his class, no better exemplified when, after his win, he said he would rather win than watch someone lose as he has just done when Mito Pereira came unglued on the 18^th hole with a one-stroke lead.

Still, Thomas deserves credit for his win!

Footnote:  I didn’t get to watch any of this.  Instead, I was volunteering at an Oregon Golf Association event.  But this blog isn’t about me.  It’s about Justin Thomas.

“WHEN I’M CORNERED, I LIE.”

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

Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple wrote that Fox News host Tucker Carlson said something revealing on a podcast last fall: “When I’m cornered, I lie.”

On one hand, I hate to quote Carlson because that’s what he wants – the sometimes adulation of being quoted.

But, his quote is noteworthy. 

For it describes the motivation, not just of Carlson, but also of such polarizing figures as Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, and their ilk.

When cornered, they lie.

It’s what comes naturally.

Look only at what McCarthy said when he was quoted as having come close to asking Trump to resign, or at least intervene, as the January 6 insurrection threatened the U.S. Capitol and Trump appeared to urge demonstrators to do even more.

No, McCarthy averred in strong terms, I did not say that.

Well, he was caught.  The New York Times writers had a tape of what he said and what they wrote was exactly right.  McCarthy said it.

So, when cornered, he lied.

He learned this from the one he admires, Trump.

Consider this.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column said Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as president.  Nearly half came in his final year.

When cornered, he lied.

If, like me, you have ever wondered how persons like Trump and McCarthy could do what they do and say what they say, the quote reveals all.  Their first impulse is to lie and they do it so often it is hard to believe them at any point.

Lying explains a lot and says volumes about what is wrong with politics in this country.  Trump deserves much of the debit.

THE OREGON GOVERNOR’S RACE

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 case you have not been following politics in Oregon, let me apprise you of one certain fact heading toward next year.

The next governor here will be a woman.

That’s because three women will face off in an unprecedented race that will be decided in November.

According to colleagues in my old lobbying/public relations firm, now called CFM Advocates:  “The contest may boil down to which candidate can make the biggest dent in the hardening disaffection of voters, which was reflected in low turnout Tuesday.”

Here is a thumbnail sketch of the three candidates:

• Powered by public employees, Tina Kotek easily won the Democrat gubernatorial nomination after serving for several years as Speaker of the Oregon House.
• On the Republican side, former Oregon House Minority Leader Christine Drazan won over 18 others from all wings of the Republican party.
• Lurking in the background, if not the foreground, is former Oregon Senator Betsy Johnson who is running as an Independent.  [She is expected to collect the required signatures to qualify for the general election ballot.]

Johnson launched her fall campaign immediately after the close of the primary, exploiting her huge campaign war chest.  Major contributions came from such Oregon business leaders as Phil Knight from Nike and Tim Boyle from Columbia Sportswear.

There is little question but that the two, along with others, will continue to fund Johnson’s campaign.

Though Johnson was not running in the primary, she outspent Kotek and Drazan.  She still has about $5 million to spend.  Drazan and Kotek raised similar $2.5 million amounts for the primary and spent almost all of it before last Tuesday, so they face the task of quickly replenishing their campaign bank accounts to compete with Johnson. 

As for voter turnout, totals seriously lagged until the final weekend when 150,000 ballots were received.  Preliminary data indicates final voter turnout only reached 31 per cent.  Turnout in the 2018 midterm election was 34 per cent.

Here, early on, here are some things to watch in the race to replace Democrat Governor Kate Brown, who is term-limited:

• Johnson appears to have a chance to win in November, which would be very different from typical third-party candidates.  In the past, such candidates have played spoiler roles.
• One of the most interesting facts will be whether Johnson takes more votes from Democrats or from Republicans.  I have heard experts argue both sides.
• At the Capitol, Johnson was a Democrat representing parts of Columbia and Clatsop Counties.  But she didn’t always support Democrat issues, preferring to go over to the Republican side, which gives her an interesting “both ways” background.
• If the answer to the question vote-taking is more Democrat than Republican, some analysts believe there will be a chance for Drazan to win, which would mean the first Republican in the Governor’s Office in more than 35 years.
• It will be interesting to see how Kotek and Drazan choose to spar in the race.  Neither appears to like the other much.  One reason is that Drazan believes Kotek went back on her word in the Oregon House over how the redistricting process would go forward last year.  For her part, Kotek disagrees.

Another reality is that most Oregon voters, if they pay attention at all, will not do so until next fall.  Summer intervenes with all it has to offer for state residents – and the “all it has to offer” point doesn’t mean election politics.

Footnote:

In the spirit of full disclosure, I know Kotek, Drazan and Johnson well after having met each during my tenure as a state lobbyist.  In the case of Kotek and Johnson, I lobbied both of them over the years.  In Drazan’s case, she was a lobbyist before she was elected to the Oregon House, so I knew her in that role.