GEORGE BUSH: THE 41ST PRESIDENT’S LIFE SET AN EXAMPLE FOR A DIVIDED COUNTRY

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 appreciated a recent column in the New York Times written by James A. Baker, III, one of America’s great federal government operatives.

Appearing under a headline I borrowed for this blog, Baker wrote this:

“At a time of political dysfunction, the 100th anniversary of President George H.W. Bush’s birth provides an opportunity to examine his leadership traits, which could help America regain its national footing.  Those qualities — which made him the best one-term president in U.S. history and one of the best ever “— include what is listed below.

Baker, a student of American government who served as Secretary of State, from 1989-92, listed traits of the elder Bush that, if followed in this country, would preserve democracy, which is under attack by Donald Trump and his minions who favor autocracy.

A few days after Baker’s column, several individuals wrote letters to the editor to criticize some of Bush’s decisions as president.  Which is understandable because no is perfect and Bush surely wasn’t as Baker would readily admit.

Still, I wish the Bush traits Baker cites would be true today.  Here they are:

• Selflessness.  Born into a family with a tradition of public service, Bush put his nation above himself.

• Trustworthiness.  What started as a wary relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader, developed into a strong, personal bond that Gorbachev credited with improving relations between the countries.  

• Pragmatism.  Bush recognized that savvy responses were often more effective than bold ones.  

• Respect for experience.  Bush often advised aspiring young politicians to avoid being like a Dalmatian in a fire house, running every time the bell rings.  Instead, he told them to get a job, start a family, and do other things that would allow them to build a full life.  

• Leadership by example.  Always a workhorse rather than a show horse, Bush let his actions speak for him.  

• Bi-partisanship.  He didn’t mind butting heads with Democrats, or with fellow Republicans for that matter.  But he refused to demonize opponents.

More from Baker:

“The political climate was far more temperate when Bush was in the White House than it is today.  Debates could be rancorous, but they reached nothing like today’s feverish and destructive pitch.  As I watch the calamity that American politics has become, I yearn for the brand of wise, courageous and humble leadership that George H.W. Bush embodied.  His virtues remind us of what we have lost — and can regain if we follow his example.”

I share Baker’s aspirations for a better America.

So, with all this, is Baker biased?  Sure.  He was Bush’s closest friend and served him in many government posts, thus earning a book about his service entitled “The Man Who Ran Washington.”

His prescription for good government, based on the example of the elder Bush –- humility, leadership by example (not just words), and working together for the good of the country no matter who gets the credit — is worth following.

POINT/COUNTER-POINT ON JOURNALISM ETHICS

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As a former journalist – yes, a long time ago – a column in the Wall Street Journal resonated with me the other day.

It raised a question about what could be called “journalism ethics.”

• What legitimately can reporters do “to get the story?”
• If the story is important enough, do “the ends justify the means?”

This came up the other day when a reporter who acted out the job by billing herself as something she wasn’t – a genuine journalist – taped two Supreme Court Justices without their knowledge at a social event.

The justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and Alito’s wife – came across differently.  No surprise there.

Then, many news outlets treated the issue produced by the fake journalist as a real story.  They covered it as if was “real news.”

So, on the Public Broadcasting Service “NewsHour,” reporter Geoff Bennett was joined by columnists David Brooks and E.J. Dionne to discuss the issue.

Here, reported by the Wall Street Journal, is a summary of how the discussion went:

“Bennett: Speaking of Justice Alito, . . . he was in the news again this week after a liberal activist secretly recorded him.  David, what do you make of this?

“Brooks:  Yes, well, listen, I’m a journalist.  We’re journalists.  There are certain things we do.  When we interview somebody, we make it clear that I work for the New York Times, the “NewsHour,” the Washington Post.

“We make it clear who we are.  We don’t lie.  We don’t misrepresent ourselves.  We don’t hide a tape recorder somewhere, and we don’t lead people on with a bunch of ideological rants.  

“And this person did all that.  It’s a complete breach of any form of journalistic ethics.  And I was, frankly, stunned that all of us in our business just reported on it, just like straight up. And to me, this information is so doctored by her attitudes, the way she’s leading on Alito and his wife.

“It’s just — it’s unfair to them, frankly, to treat this as some major news story.  We should be treating it as a prankster.  And there’s a right-wing version of this called Project Veritas, where they lie too — as some prankster who’s creating distorted information.”

“Dionne:  Well, you know, am I a big fan of surreptitious reporting?  No, I’m not a big fan of somebody pretending to be someone other than who they are.  

“But, gosh, I reserve far more outrage over the setting of this.  What was it about?  This is where people can give big contributions to this perfectly fine historical society around the Supreme Court.  But they get privileged access to these justices.  And we don’t know anything about what happens, or very much, unless reporters go at it, which I think is what motivated this reporter to try to get some information.”

There you have it.

Two sides.

For my part, I join David Brooks.  He has it right.  The so-called journalist was a prankster.  Treat her as such and ignore what she produced.

Alito and his wife were caught saying dumb stuff and they failed to recognize the dilemma they faced. 

Chief Justice Roberts managed to avoid making negative headlines.

But, for me, as for Brooks, the best ethical approach for journalists is for them to work very hard to get a story, but do so in a straightforward, honest fashion. 

Too bad that didn’t happen this time.

ROYAL DORNOCH AND ME? NOT TO BE

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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

I received this note the other day from Royal Dornoch Golf Club in Scotland:

“At the Council of Management meeting held on Monday 3^rd June it was decided that applications for Struie Course membership would remain closed.

“There were only 10 offers of upgrade from Struie to full membership approved this year and, with 564 Struie members still waiting for the upgrade, it was deemed that there was no space to accept any new Struie members this year as the prospects of being upgraded are well into the future.

“We are sorry not to have better news but with member retention so high, movement is very slow.

“The next update on membership will be in June 2025.”

So, I lose again.

I had hoped to become a member of one of my favorite golf courses in the world, Royal Dornoch, especially in preparation for a trip to Scotland a couple years ago.  I tried to join, but was told that the first step was to join Struie, a course that sits hard by the side of Royal Dornoch.

Now that, too, appears to be off the books.

Oh well, I mostly am staying in the U.S. these days rather than venturing overseas.

Here is what I wrote a couple years ago about Royal Dornoch:

“If you asked me to list my favorite golf course in the world – a bit of a artificial question, I admit – Royal Dornoch would be at or near the top of the list.

“I have had the privilege of going there on several occasions and have never tired of this great example of links golf in Scotland.

“My curiosity was peaked when I read a book, A Season in Dornoch, by golf writer Lorne Rubenstein.  With his wife, he went from his home in Toronto to Scotland for several months to live and play golf there.  He rented a flat on the second story of a bookstore in the town of Dornoch and it was only a short walk to the golf course.

“He didn’t only play there.  Lorne and his wife got to know the residents of Dornoch.  Plus, he walked on the course, telling stories of the sounds his feet made as he trekked his way around the course that sits astride the Firth of 4^th.

“An excerpt from the book:

“’The town of Dornoch, Scotland, lies at nearly the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska.  A bit too far removed for the taste of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, the Royal Dornoch Club has never hosted a British Open, but that has hardly diminished its mystique or its renown. 

“In an influential piece for the New Yorker in 1964, Herbert Warren Wind wrote, ‘It is the most natural course in the world.  No golfer has completed his education until he has played and studied Royal Dornoch.

“’If any town in the world deserves to be described as ‘the village of golf,’ it’s Dornoch.  The game has been played in Dornoch for some 400 years.  Its native son Donald Ross brought the style of the Dornoch links to America, where his legendary, classic courses include Pinehurst #2, Seminole, and Oak Hill.’”

All of this captured my imagination when I read the book and, so, with my wife, we made a pilgrimage to Dornoch a number of years ago and have been back several times since that first trip. 

For my wife, Nancy, it was a return to her homeland, Scotland, or, more accurately, the homeland of her parents before each emigrated to the U.S. when they were children.

So, Royal Dornoch remains on my “best golf course list,” even though it appears I will not be able join as a member.

Too bad.  The Dornoch folks will miss me.

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 am opening the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, one of five I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, the Department of Words Matter, and the Department of “Just Saying.”

So inquiring minds want to know:

• Why did pro golfer Justin Thomas dump caddy Bones McKay off his bag in golf tournaments?

McKay is one of the best caddies going, having served for 25 years with Phil Mickelson while the two won more than 40 tournaments.  Then, Mickelson cut McKay to have his brother on the bag, an understandable move, even for the “not-understandable” Mickelson.

Then, McKay moved into a TV commentator position for golf tournaments and did what many consider to be a great job, providing solid insights from his time as a top-level caddy.

McKay then joined Justin Thomas, at least for a time.  No one seems to know the reason for the dissolution of the partnership, or least no one is saying anything.  So, McKay is heading back to TV.  Good.

• Why do some people care so much about red, white and blue flags on golf holes at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club where I play?

When a decision was made at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem to remove red, white and blue color-coded flags on our greens (red means short, white means middle, and blue means long).

The decision sparked a mini-revolt among some club members, not all, but some.

Certain players who talked to me said, “Why?”

To me, it was not a big deal because I carry a range-finder, plus have played at Illahe for about 35 years, so I tend to know most of the distances.

But, like a lot of issues these days, the color-coded flag removal became a controversy, even, at one point, sparking notions of a conspiracy that the action was taken intentionally to incent players to buy expensive range finders. 

Really?

But that’s what you get these days with most conspiracy theories – no factual basis for them.

• What makes Scottie Scheffler different from so many other pro golfers?

Scheffler didn’t have his best game last weekend at the Memorial Tournament in Ohio, on a course Jack Nicklaus designed.  But he still won and had his picture taken with Nicklaus, his wife, Barbara, Sheffler’s wife, Meredith, and their new baby, Bennett.

A photo for the scrapbook!

Scheffler made a tough five-foot downhill putt on the last hole to save a one-shot victory over Colin Morikawa – and Morikawa had played better than Scheffler all day long, except came up one-stroke short of eclipsing Scheffler’s three-shot cushion at the start of the day.

And, that prompted some commentators to continue comparing him to Tiger Woods and Nicklaus.

I say, too soon.  Give him a few more years to play great golf and then comparisons will be more viable.  He is still very good on his own without comparisons.

So, what separates Scheffler today?  I suggest several factors:  First, he appears to keep his mind straight; second, he loves the competition, win or lose; and, third, he has a great relationship with his caddy, Ted Stock, who helps him recover from a bad shot if he hits one, thus illustrating the old golf axiom”– What’s the most important shot in golf?  The next one. 

Something all of us should learn, just as Scheffler is this week at the U.S. Open where he didn’t have a great first round.

WHAT DOES THE AMERICAN FLAG MEAN? NOT TRUMP!

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 point of this blog is to say that my wife and I have an American flag draped on our back yard deck.

Why?

Because we want to respect the country – our country – and to honor those who have defended us in numerous wars around the world.

Not because we favor Donald Trump.  In the strongest possible words, NO!

Trump and his ilk have somehow managed to capture the flag and wrap their arms around it as if they believe in America. 

They don’t.

There is no better way for me to make this point this morning than to reprint a column by Rick Reilly that can this morning in the Washington Post. 

Reilly is good with words and his is good this time around as I say he speaks for me and many other Americans who treasure the flag for its real meaning, not the fake Trump-infected meaning.

Here is Reilly’s column.

*********

Since when does Donald Trump own the American flag?

As I’ve discovered, flying Old Glory makes people assume you support Trump.

Error! Filename not specified.

I’m not easily flabbergasted, but the other day my flabber got good and gasted. I was riding my beach bike, the one with the 2-by-3-foot American flag flying off the back. I fly it because I … (a) love my country and (b) love my spine, and the flapping flag means fewer cars flatten me.

 hear a honk. That’s when a guy on the passenger side of a white 4×4 Ram truck leans out and yells, “Yeah! Go Trump!”

Go Trump? Me? He can’t be yelling that at me. I look around for somebody in a MAGA hat or a T-shirt with Trump’s mug shot, but there’s nobody. And that’s when it hits me.

This guy thinks I’m a Trumper.

Why else would I be flying an American flag?

Then, a week later, it happens again, only in reverse. I’m riding when a woman leans out of her green Subaru and hollers, “F— Trump!” and flips me off. She’d seen the flag and figured the same thing as the guy in the truck.

This lady thinks I’m a Trumper.

Which brings me to a question for Friday — Flag Day: When did the American flag become another Trump property?

And if the former president doesn’t quite own it, he has definitely co-opted it. Nowadays, if you see a jacked-high pickup with four American flags, you either honk proudly or move three lanes away. There’s a house on my block with a giant Trump flag hanging from the roof. Do you ever see a Biden flag? Me neither, not once. Online, you can find dozens of American flags for sale with Donald Trump’s name or face on them. Good luck finding one with Biden’s.

Presidential candidates have always been glad to wrap themselves in the flag, of course. But with Trump, it has never looked more like a Hollywood prop. Trump doesn’t care about the flag any more than he cares about being a Republican. What he cares about is how he looks holding it.

I was with Trump one time, 20 years ago, when he kept mis-introducing me as “the guy who runs Sports Illustrated” or “this guy owns SI!” I just worked at the place. When I asked him why he was lying to people, he said, “Sounds better.”

Trump loves the flag, like the Bible, because it looks better. The American flags flying at his properties are about the size of a Denny’s. He actually cuddled up to a flag at a conservative conference in 2020 and mouthed, “I love you, baby.”

He’s yuuuuge on the flag, but puny on what it stands for.

Serve your country in the military? Uh … no.

Obey the law? No, no, 34 times no.

Free speech? Big no. Trump says that if reelected he would retaliate against media “criminally or civilly.”

But what really makes me eat bees is that Trumpers aren’t just kidnapping the flag — they’re abusing it, too. MAGAs are flying the flag upside-down. Like the one that flew over the Alitos’ house. That used to be a seafaring sign that a ship is in distress. Now it’s a sign that the brain is.

In video of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, an Arkansas trucker picked up an American flag on a pole and beat a cop with it. Bash the Blue.

There’s also a Jan. 6 video showing the invaders yanking down the Star-Spangled Banner and putting up a Trump one. And Colin Kaepernick taking a knee was treasonous?

For a lot of Americans, the flag has become a symbol of Trump misogyny, Trump bigotry and Trump wannabe president for life. Which means, for Democrats like me, flying an American flag on your house is akin to bringing your neighbors anthrax brownies. Flying a flag puts you in the pickup truck with an Oath Keeper. You can see why. During the 2020 election, a phalanx of trucks flying American flags and Trump flags tried to run a Biden campaign bus off the road.

The Stars and Stripes were here 169 years before Trump was born, and they’ll be here long after he’s gone. I say it’s time to take the flag back. And so does the Biden campaign, judging by the Democratic National Committee’s recent ad for him — it’s just called “Flag.”

The American flag belongs to 336 million of us, not just the 46.9 percent of the electorate that went for Trump last time around. More than 81 million Americans voted for Biden in 2020. The more of us flying the flag from our porches and cars and, yeah, bikes, the less it seems as though Trump helped Betsy Ross sew it.

“Go Trump”? Great idea. Go, Trump, as far away as possible. But leave the flag.

ILLAHE HILLS MAKES “GOLFWEEK’S “TOP LIST OF PRIVATE COURSES IN OREGON

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 place where I play most of my golf – Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon – again made GolfWeek magazine’s  ist of “top private golf courses” in each state.

It was the second time in a row that Illahe made the list for Oregon, an honor I think it deserves as it stands among other solid courses in Oregon, such as Portland Golf Club, Columbia Edgewater, and Waverly.

As GolfWeek put it:

“No matter where you live or where you want to play, these tabulations by our Golfweek’s Best Rater Program offer something for every golfer.”

How does GolfWeek come with its “best in golf” lists?

It relies on the perspectives of more than 800 raters around the world.  They are golfers who play the courses and rate each layout based on 10 criteria, with each offering its own 10-point scale.

Raters then offer one overall rating of 1 to 10, which is not cumulative based on the 10 criteria.  An average of those overall ratings is calculated to create an annual score for each layout, allowing Golfweek’s Best to rank courses. 

It is worth noting, GolfWeek says, that there are no perfect 10s.  Only eight courses around the world with enough qualifying votes to appear on our top lists in 2024 are rated above a 9.  An average rating above 8 indicates an incredible golf course.  Anything above a 7 is worth traveling great distances to experience.  Courses with an average rating of 6 to 7 are probably the best course in most cities.

Here, from GolfWeek, is a summary of the rating qualifications.

1. Routing

How well the holes individually and collectively adhere to the land and to each other. 

2a. Integrity of design

The extent to which the existing holes either conform to the original design intent or, for those courses that have been renovated, the extent to which the holes embody a character that is cohesive rather than fragmentary.

2b. Quality of shaping (

The extent to which course construction creates design elements that fit in well and provide a consistent look or sensibility. 

3. Overall land plan 

Ease of integration of all built-out elements with native land including course, clubhouse, real estate, roads, native topography and landforms. Extent to which land plan facilitates long views of surrounds and/or interior views of property. 

4. Greens and surrounds 

Interest, variety and playability of putting surfaces, collars, chipping areas and greenside bunkers. 

5. Variety and memorability of par 3s 

Differentiation of holes by length, club required, topography, look and angle of approach. 

6. Variety and memorability of par 4s 

Range of right-to-left and left-to-right drives and second shots required, as well as spread of length, topography and look of the holes. 

7. Variety and memorability of par 5s 

Variety of risk/reward opportunities on tee shot; how interesting the second shots are; variety of third shots required. 

8. Tree and landscape management 

Extent to which ornamentals, hardwoods, conifers and other flora enhance the design and playability of a course without overburdening it or compromising strategic flexibility and agronomy. 

9. Conditioning and ecology 

Overall quality of maintenance, discounting for short-term issues (weather or top dressing); extent of native areas; diversity of plant life and wildlife. 

10. “Walk in the park” test 

The sense of the place as worthy of spending four hours on it.

So, with all this, my favorite course in the world, makes the private course list for Oregon!  Good.

When I talked with Illahe’s head pro about this rating result, he offered another interesting perspective.  He said that, if you asked pro golfers around Oregon for their ratings (not just amateur raters), Illahe would rank in the top five private courses in the state.

That said, I think I’ll go out and play golf again – now.

GREAT QUOTES FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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 now open one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

This time, it’s the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

FROM JESSIE WEGMAN:  Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board, wrote an excellent column the other day on the felony convictions of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Without reviewing the entire piece, here is one of best sentences Wegman wrote:

“Donald Trump considers himself to be above the law even as he threatens to wield the law against his enemies if given the chance.”

Nothing more needs to be said, though I will add this.  Besides convictions on 34 criminal violations, Trump also stands guilty of this – duplicity.

FROM AARON BLAKE:  In the Washington Post, political analyst Aaron Blake, wrote this:

“Taking a step back, Trump’s tactics are familiar to those who study fascism.  ‘Fascism encourages contempt for democrat institutions, particularly elections, and the rule of law,’ the Public Leadership Institute explained in a 2022 essay. 

“Instead, it calls on the majority group to turn over power to a strongman and his lieutenants, while glorifying the use of violence in support of fascist myths and goals.’”

There, Blake says it – Trump is a Fascist.  He wants all the power.

Blake adds:  “…every conspiracy theory must occasionally be fertilized.”  So, Republicans set about doing that last Tuesday (in a hearing they called in the House to rail against Trump’s guilty verdicts).

FROM FRANK BRUNI:  In the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni wrote this this:

“Trump’s a bona fide felon now.  Back in 2016, it was somewhat easier for Americans itching to cast a protest vote to see the vilest of Trump’s behavior and the most vicious of his remarks as theatrical provocations, as a flamboyant show of defiance that wouldn’t amount to all that much.  

“The line between mischief and malice could be blurry, at least if you didn’t care to look closely.

“Eight years later?  There’s nothing blurry about Trump. There’s no mistaking or minimizing the Nazi echoes in his talk of immigrants poisoning the blood of the country or his reference to his critics on the left as vermin.  There’s no shrugging off his invitation to Vladimir Putin to invade NATO allies who didn’t pay their dues and his pledge to use the presidency to take revenge on his enemies.”

FROM DANA MILBANK:  The columnist, Miltank, wrote under this headline:  “As Biden rallies the free world, Trump serves a higher cause – himself.”

Milbank continued:

“In Phoenix, at his first post-conviction campaign rally, Trump portrayed a dark and desperate America.

“The 80th anniversary of D-Day provided the contrast that should define the election.

“President Biden went to Normandy and spoke about American greatness.  Donald Trump went to Phoenix and ‘a ‘very sick country.’

“In France, Biden rhapsodized about ‘the story of America’ told by the rows of graves at the Normandy America Cemetery:  ‘Nearly 10,000 heroes buried side by side, officers and enlisted, immigrants and native-born, different races, different faiths, but all Americans.’

“In Phoenix, Trump, invoked the racist ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory, saying Biden had orchestrated an ‘invasion’ at the border as part of ‘a deliberate demolition of our sovereignty’ because ‘they probably think these people are going to be voting.’”

All four commentators are right.  Now, who do you want vote for later this year?

A CASE FOR LOCKING UP DONALD TRUMP

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Remember back in the day when Donald Trump tried to make hay by advocating that authorities lock up Hillary Clinton?

I do.

Now, Trump could face the same call because he has been convicted of 34 felons.

That’s right, 34.  He is a felon.  So, lock him up.

Of course, he doesn’t care.

And, believe this – he actually tries to capitalize on that status to raise money from the MAGA crowd who believe he is a victim.

Well, to me, he is not a victim.

All of us, instead, are victims, given his proclivity, even as president, to break the law and contend that such action is what makes him and America great.

Washington Post analyst, Jennifer Rubin, wrote in the Washington Post this week about Trump’s new status.  This was the headline: “The best argument to lock up Trump:  Merchan must protect the judiciary.”

“Seasoned legal minds differ on whether felon and former president Donald Trump should receive prison time for his conviction on 34 counts. However, considering the context of Trump’s crimes and his propensity to threaten judges, juries and witnesses, significant prison time is the only punishment that fits the crime and this convict.

“Trump’s crime of falsification of business records is considered a Class E felony — the lowest-level felony, punishable by up to four years in prison. Punishment for each count would run concurrently, so the maximum would be four years, not 136 years.

“In addition to the gravity of the offense, the factors weighing most heavily in favor of a significant prison sentence are Trump’s conduct and character. It is not ‘simply’ that Trump has multiple civil judgments against him (e.g., sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, inflating his property values and misusing charitable funds), or that he spearheaded a violent insurrection to overturn an election, or even that his conduct resulted in multiple contempt citations in Merchan’s and Justice Arthur Engoron’s courtrooms.  

“In this case, character and conduct also encompass how Trump treats the criminal justice system.

“From that perspective, imprisonment may be the only effective penaltybecause of Trump’s defective character.  Chump-change fines for contempt during the trial did not slow him down.  So long as he remains at large, with unfettered access to social media, he poses a threat to the people he attacks and the judicial system he maligns. Incarceration is the only means of holding Trump accountable for his wholesale attacks on the rule of law that continue to this day.”

COMMENT:  Rubin makes good points, though, I suspect, in the end, Trump will escape with a fine (he won’t care how much) and perhaps home confinement in a way that will allow him to continue campaigning.

I’ll give Ruth Marcus from the Post the last word here.

“Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of prosecuting Donald Trump.  Reasonable people can differ about the justice of the guilty verdict in the Manhattan hush money case against the former president.

“But we are not dealing with reasonable people in the Trump-fueled reaction to his conviction on 34 felony counts.  We are dealing with dangerous people — and a dangerous assault on the rule of law in the call for state-level officials to launch revenge prosecutions and the threat of federally directed retribution against President Biden and other Democrats if Trump returns to power.

“This is so unhinged it is tempting to ignore it as overheated bloviating. That would be a mistake.  The individuals inciting this prosecution-as-payback approach sit at Trump’s elbow.  And they appear incapable of grasping the essential flaw in their reasoning:  That, even assuming the basest partisan motives on the part of Trump’s pursuers, the proper response is to retaliate in kind.”

So, if Trump wins, the anti-democracy approach will continue.  Round up anyone who disagrees, Trump says, and put them in jail.  Sounds like a puppet regime, which is exactly what Trump wants.

MORE ON CHANGING GOLF’S DIVOT RULE

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If I would have been smart – how many times in life have I said that? – I would have added a key point yesterday in a blog I wrote about my support for changing a golf rule, divots in fairways.

The point would have been this:  The late professional golfer Payne Stewart had bad luck with his ball coming to rest in a fairway divot during the 1998 U.S. Open at The Olympic Club, then again a year later in the Open at Pinehurst.

This stands as the hallmark of the need to change the unfair golf rule.

Of course, Stewart didn’t like what happened either time.  But, what do you do?

Official golf rules say, “live with it.”

When the “divot problem” happened again at Pinehurst, Stewart was ready for it the second time around because he had practiced on how to escape from such a predicament.

Here is the way golf writer Lee Pace put it in a story I found through Mr. Google:

“Payne Stewart made a remarkable personal metamorphosis over the 1990s.  Always a graceful and talented performer on the course, Stewart, as a young tour pro, wasn’t universally embraced away from the course as his somewhat bratty, churlish ways rubbed many he encountered the wrong way.

“A variety of circumstances and lessons conspired over the 1990s to soften and smooth the edges, and the 42-year-old Stewart who came to Pinehurst for the 1999 U.S. Open was significantly more humble and likeable than the one who won the 1991 Open at Hazeltine.”  Or, I add, almost won at Olympic in 1998.

“That evolution of Stewart, Pace writes, “is perhaps best illustrated in the story of the divots of Olympic 1998 and Pinehurst 1999. 

“Stewart enjoyed a four-shot lead to begin the final day of the ’98 Open in San Francisco, but he was two-over on the front nine and his lead had shrunk to two shots over Lee Janzen by the time he reached the tee of the par-four 12th hole.

“Stewart hit a good drive but encountered a bad break — his ball landed in a divot made earlier in the week and subsequently filled with sand and tamped down by course maintenance workers.

“Stewart and his caddie took a little extra time to examine the lie and contemplate the shot, then Stewart hit his approach from the divot into a greenside bunker.

“USGA official Tom Meeks had been clocking Stewart’s shot and told him, as Stewart walked to the green, that he had taken too long and that Stewart was being issued a slow-play warning.  

“Stewart was stunned and aggravated.  Unsettled by the divot and the warning, Stewart made two consecutive bogeys, fell out of the lead and opened the door for Janzen to rally from behind for the win.”

Given what happened, Stewart said something with which I agree — there should be relief when a good drive in the fairway lands in a divot.

Then, in 1999 at Pinehurst, the same thing happened to Stewart – a drive in a divot.  He was ready for it and played well from that divot to win the Open title, but the bottom-line point is the same:

Even if golfers demonstrate the ability to hit out of a divot in the fairway, a good drive should not be punished in that way.  Just as occurs on a green where there are ball marks and spike marks, give golfers relief in the fairway.  A free drop out of the divot without penalty.

It’s the fair and right action to take.

Payne Stewart’s experience in the 1990s is one of the best illustrations on this change in golf rules – and I wish I would have cited it yesterday.  It’s not too late today.

MY VOTE FOR CHANGING A GOLF RULE

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 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.

One of my favorite golf magazines – Links – came up this month with a good story, citing 10 golf rules that it said should be changed.

I didn’t agree with all its recommendations, but, for one, a solid yes.

This:  “Relief from Divots/The Rules of Golf grant relief from many kinds of abnormal ground conditions — including by way of Rule 13.1c(2), which allows a player to repair ball marks and spike marks on putting surfaces.

From Links:  “The rules look to strike a balance between the longstanding tradition of playing the ball ‘as it lies’ and fairness, and in the case of this rule, they indicate that on greens, such relief is warranted.  But no such relief is offered in the case of a ball coming to rest in a divot, which is manifestly inconsistent.”

My vote – again a solid yes.

It is a condition – the unlucky bounce that, even for a good drive, ends up in a divot – always strikes me as patently unfair.  So change it.

One other major rule change for me is this:  Re-write Rule 12, which makes a number of ill-conceived comments about permitted actions in bunkers.  One of these, incredibly, says it is “allowable to strike the sand in anger and frustration.”

Say what? 

If a golfer did this in Oregon Golf Association sponsored events where I often volunteer, he or she would get a “code of conduct” penalty.

There is absolutely no reason for this to be included in the Rules of Golf.

Drawing on the Links Magazine article, I list below all the rules it advocates changing – but just by title without all the detail.  And, then I add my agreement or disagreement.

1. Limit of 14 Clubs/the magazine wants to allow as many or as few as a player wants:  Disagree. 

2. Relief from Divots:  Agree.

3. Relief in Bunkers…if your golf ball is in areas not previously raked:  Agree.

4. Stroke and Distance Penalty for Loss of Ball or Ball Hit Out of Bounds:  Disagree.

5. Three-Minute Time Limit to Find a Lost Ball…by adding more time:  Disagree.

6. Ball Embedded by Someone Stepping on It:  Agree.

7. Interference from Boundary Objects…if your ball comes to rest in bounds but in a position where the boundary fence interferes with your stance or swing, there is no relief, but it should be granted:  Agree.

8. Use of Distance-Measuring Devices – allow them:  Agree (though I don’t know that allowing such devices would necessarily speed up play).

9. Rules for Relief from Penalty Areas…to provide consistency:  Agree

10. Pace of Play Rule:  Either throw this out or enforce it…I vote for the latter.

There it is.  Enough.  With that, I am heading out to play golf…again.