Kulongoski "knew" about Goldschmidt? I call bullshit.

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

On Sunday, the Oregonian's Steve Duin swung the bat on Governor Kulongoski - arguing that he's been dishonest regarding his knowledge about Neil Goldschmidt's statutory rape of a teenage babysitter in the 1970s.

It is Ted Kulongoski's good fortune, apparently, that "moral fitness" and "honesty" are standards for police officers, not governors.

And this week, right-wing radio jerk Lars Larson went one step further - taking up Duin's request that someone file a complaint with the state bar association.

The question of whether Kulongoski knew more than he is saying was raised again over the weekend by Oregonian columnist Steve Duin. "It is important for the people of Oregon to know whether the governor has misrepresented his knowledge in this matter," Larson wrote in his letter [to the state bar.]

Personally, I find this character assassination of the Governor to be horrible and wrong. The whole thing is based on a statement by one guy - Fred Leonhardt. I don't know a damn thing about Leonhardt, but I'm pretty sure the standard in journalism is to get two sources. Duin has exactly one.

And let's take a look at that statement by Leonhardt, which doesn't contain anything we haven't known for a long time:

Leonhardt has long insisted that Giusto first told him about Goldschmidt's abuse of the girl in 1989, then provided more details in 1994. He said that he first related the story to Kulongoski when the latter was running for attorney general in late 1991 or early 1992 and shared Giusto's additional details with Kulongoski in December 1994. Kulongoski denies those conversations took place.

Let's turn the clock back.

In 1990, then-Governor Goldschmidt was a popular guy - widely expected to run for re-election. Some people were talking about a run for president or vice-president in 1992 or 1996. But suddenly, out of the blue, he announced he wasn't going to run for a second term. It was a stunner in Oregon politics. A political earthquake. And no one had an explanation.

It wasn't long before his wife, Margie Goldschmidt, divorced him. She didn't even wait until the end of his term in January 1991.

There were LOTS of rumors going around. I was a high school senior - interested in politics, doing a little volunteering here and there - and even I heard lots of rumors. Crazy, ridiculous rumors.

There was the one about how Neil had a gay lover. There was the one about how Neil had an illegitimate African-American child. There was the one about a hooker in Canada. And there were a dozen variations on the plain ol' he-had-an-affair rumor.

There were so many damn rumors that it was just plain absurd. It seemed, at the time, like everyone had an explanation why the good-looking governor got divorced and gave up his political career. After all, it seemed pretty obvious that it had something to do with infidelity.

So, put Leonhardt's "recollection" in that context. Even if it's true that he told Kulongoski a rumor about Goldschmidt and a teenage babysitter, why would Kulongoski believe it? I was a kid in high-school, and I had heard over a dozen rumors - a well-connected politico like Kulongoski would have heard many, many more.

(And frankly, so would a well-connected reporter like Steve Duin. Why didn't he report any of 'em at the time?)

But wait, wasn't Leonhardt's report a bit more than a rumor? Hard to know - but when he first discussed the situation with the Oregonian, in their first story in 2004 about Leonhardt's allegation, Leonhardt described it as a "rumor" when he says he talked about it with Kulongoski.

Over the years, Leonhardt said, the two of them occasionally spoke about the rumor and speculated about whether it figured into Goldschmidt's decision not to seek re-election.

So, put Leonhardt's story in context. There were lots of rumors. He had another one, maybe the juiciest one, but there doesn't seem to be any reason why Ted Kulongoski, Steve Duin, this high-school student, or anybody else should have given it any credence when there were so many others floating around out there.

Given that Leonhardt's been peddling this shit since 2004, why is it coming up again now? Is the media just bored? Is this the equivalent of Shark Week 2007 - in the interim between the legislative session and the election season?

Comments

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think the part missing here is that, as Kulongoski was in a position to know Goldschmidt personally, did he ask him about it ("it" being "why aren't you running again? what truth is there to these rumors?")?

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I've been prodded about this issue, there are a couple things I know to be true, wealth and power generate rumors and the powerful with something to lose are very close mouthed about any kind of scandal they might be involved in.

    I don't care what position you hold in State government, if you are not in possesion of facts, you sure better keep your peace about the most powerful person in your venue. Not to mention, relating such hugely damaging stories without facts to back you up would be the height of irresponsibily.

    All that said, I know exactly nothing regarding Gov K and Goldschmidt.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I could go along w/you but for one tiny teeny problem - the rumor turned out to be FACT.

    Compound that fact with the after acquired knowledge that Goldschmidt systematically paid tribute to the young lady for years afterwards and you have a potential issue. Add to that the incestuous nature peculiar to Oregon Power politics amongst the powerful, liberal and democratic elite and you have the potential for cover-up of huge proportions.

    Tell me Kari, would your outrage be similar had it been a powerful conservative republican governor and the person in question was a certain junior senator from this state oft times pilloried on this site? Please be intellectually honest Kari.

  • (Show?)

    wealth and power generate rumors

    And so do good looks - especially among politicians. Nobody ever wondered if Mike Dukakis ever had an affair.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, I could go along w/you but for one tiny teeny problem - the rumor turned out to be FACT.

    Yes, we know that now -- but that's not the question. The question is whether or not Kulongoski knew back in 1991 - when this state was awash in rumors about Goldschmidt.

    And all we have is one guy, one disgruntled former speechwriter, who says he passed on the "rumor". He didn't call it "fact" then, either.

    Sure, if Kulongoski knew something, it'd be a big, big, big deal. But so far, there's zero evidence of that. Zero.

  • (Show?)

    Right on Kari. To extend your point about Duin, what about Lars himself? Other Republicans? Surely the rumors were not restricted to Democrats.

    And the late '80s & early '90s wouldn't be the key time anyway -- if there were people who knew in the '70s close to the time it happened and didn't step up to call N. G. out and make sure the girl got help, that's where I'd see culpability.

  • (Show?)

    In my opinion. Just because he heard about Goldsmith having sex with a 14 year old does not mean he belived what he heard. This town is full of tasty little rumors about all of our political leaders. Some are proven true over time, most are just urban legends. It would be ignorant for any of us to belive a tenth of the rumors we hear.

    If the Gov knew the story was true at the time he heard about it or a later date before he ran for Gov.....I have a problem with that. If he just brushed off the rumors as more political BS.....I am fine with that.

    The Gov needs to take this issue on and put it to rest for good. It is obvious this issue is no going to go away anytime soon.

  • (Show?)

    It sounds like there were so many rumors, it was hard to seperate what was fact and what was fiction. Certainly one of the rumors turned out to be true, but how do we know for sure Kulongoski knew that one was true. Saying that he should have known or he might of asked is pure speculation.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kurt does not believe his own argument -- such that he even makes one. He's trying to pile as much innuendo as he can into one paragraph hoping the general seeminess of it will have an impact.

    He presents no actual evidence or facts except one unconnected lurid detail that has been reported and re-reported for years. Basically, it's a layman's attempt -- and not a very good one -- at a political hatchet job.

    Smarmy hatchet jobs are pretty much all that's left of the Republican "party of ideas."

  • (Show?)

    Smarmy hatchet jobs are pretty much all that's left of the Republican "party of ideas."

    I don't think it's fair to pin this one on us. Lars may be a Republican, but it's hard to see anyone hanging that label on Steve Duin.

    Personally, I agree with Kari's analysis. The only thing I'd add is that, in retrospect, Ted probably shouldn't have been so definitive in his denials that he heard the rumors. It would have been more credible had he simply said, as Kari did, that he heard a lot of rumors and speculation at the time about why Neil decided not to run but that he had no recollection of this one and certainly had no reason then to believe it was true.

    Like Kari, I also heard many rumors at the time of Neil's decision not to run again but they all involved various infidelities on the part of Goldschmidt and his wife (including the Giusto rumor). I certainly have no recollection of hearing anything about sex with a 14-year-old but if someone came forward today and swore they told me about it I don't know if I could say with absolute certainty that they were wrong and that I simply didn't dismiss it as too far-fetched.

  • Paddy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari: Are you a guy or a xxxxxxxx? It's hard to tell from your picture and the spelling of your first name.

    [Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

  • vic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paddy: Are you an ass or a hole? It's hard to tell from what you write.

  • Deal with it then (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Governor's recent actions are not helping things. Rather than simply dealing with the accusations head on, saying something that make's sense and moving on, the Governor has taken the track of running off the stage when he gets questions on the issue.

    Whether he knew or not, his actions make him look really guilty.

  • (Show?)

    Nice work, Kari. The standard for journalism is higher than it is for paid rumor-mongering, which is the craft Lars practices. I expect better from the Oregonian. I second the call. In journalism, it's bullshit until there's a reasonable amount of evidence--period.

  • Kirk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Oregonian is NO friend of the governor - we all know that. And Lars Larson is just a mouthpiece for neo-con nut cases.

    This is just republican smear attacks - it's all they know how to do.

  • Paddy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

  • vic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A savant when judging two or more bullshitters in a sniff test.

    So's my chihuahua.

    Troll.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i agree that gov. kulongoski needs to deal with the issue and not walk off the stage when asked the question. a simple straightforward denial and "next question, please" is the way to go.

  • (Show?)

    You are intentionally trying to obfuscate what Leonhardt is alleging. He did not tell Kulogoski about a "rumor." He told Kulongoski, in explicit detail, what Guisto had told him. Excerpt from Leonhardt's affadavit:

    "While Giusto was busy pouring wine at a bar at the back of the house, I made small talk until we were alone. When I asked about Goldschmidt and the girl, he matter of factly and without hesitation told me the scandal would be exposed in The Oregonian any day.

    The victim had a lawyer and a therapist who was willing to testify in a lawsuit to the damage she had suffered from Goldschmidt’s abuse. Giusto told me the names of Goldschmidt’s lawyers and that Goldschmidt’s new wife had just learned about the girl and was involved in the negotiations. He knew this detailed information because Neil had asked Margie for permission to open their sealed divorce papers to prove that he was financially unable to meet the victim’s settlement demands due to onerous limony payments.

    As other guests approached the bar, I went looking for Kulongoski. I dragged him to a quiet spot in a corner behind a couch. We sat on the floor for privacy and I told him everything I had heard from Giusto no more than ten minutes earlier."

    Trying to pass this off as "swirling rumors" is totally disingenuous.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve Duin is a sportswriter turned columnist. Neither one really requires having any credible source for a juicy piece of writing, just someone to hang the story on.

    Its pretty clear a lot of people, many of whom came to power and prominence as a result of their association with Goldschmidt, had more than just rumored knowledge that Goldschmidt was a child-molester. It was not in their interest to share that information, so they didn't. On the other hand, they certainly weren't afraid to crow about Goldschmidt's talents and accomplishments.

    Now those same people who benefited from association with Goldschmidt's successes are being asked to explain how they missed this major character flaw. I don't think that is unfair. If Kulongoski had tied his star to Frank Ivancie, he wouldn't be governor today. And, if Goldschmidt had been outed as a child-molester earlier, its not clear Kulongoski would be governor today.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Trying to pass this off as "swirling rumors" is totally disingenuous.

    Not really. That depends on whether you think Bernie is a credible source. And if Kulongoski has heard this rumor before, do you suppose he might take Bernie's embellishments as nothing more than Bernie being Bernie?

    I am trying to figure out what Kulongoski was supposed to do with this? Call Steve Duin?

  • (Show?)

    While I gree with Ross's conclusions, it's also true that this comes down to a single accuser of associates of GoldSchmidt's.

    There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the mayor committed crimes against a minor, but when you get to the next step, all there is are the allegations of one ex-speechwriter.

    It's a Schrodinger's Cat situation and cannot be resolved empirically, as such, why is this a story?

  • Frank Carper (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paddy,

    You are, indeed, an asshole. We are trying to have a conversation, please let us do so. Might I suggest Loadedorygun.net as a place where your level of dialogue might be appreciated.

    All,

    The Governor's press shop has misstepped on this one. It doesn't matter why the issue came up again this week, it did. Instead of storming off during a press conference on another issue, Kulonsoki should have handled this like Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams handled the recent unfounded rumors against him: hit it head on.

    The Governor should just deny this rumor, point out how little credibility that Leonhardt has and how many unfounded rumors he circulated back in the day, blast Lars for using his microphone in such an irresponsible manner not only on this situation but in so many for so long, and move on. In two days, not a single reporter would want to talk about this again. Ever.

    But no, let's not talk about it because Lars filed the complaint... well, it just ain't working.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frank, I respectfully disagree. Getting in a pissing contest with Larson and the other rat-wing loonies would just give this non-story legs.

    This is just more of the same standard sliming tactics we have learned to expect from the Rethugnicans.

  • (Show?)

    Rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute. It is also, unfortunately, a crime for which many attach a stigma to the victim. This often includes feelings of self-loathing by the victims themselves. Until Goldschmidt's victim was able to take a huge risk and come forward to let the public know what had been done to her, neither Giusto, Kulongoski, Leonhardt, nor even the righteous Steve Duin could have made any statements in public about the case. Meaning little could be done to diminish Goldschmidt's lock on state political access and power.

    One of my friends in high school was raped by another friend. There were no witnesses, there was lots of vodka, they were seen leaving a party together, and the perp claimed it was consensual (does this sound familiar?) No legal case could ever have been made. Most (but not all) of us who the vicitm trusted enough to tell believed her. But we didn't go repeating stories the victim didn't want spread around. And we still had to find a way to face both the rapist and the victim on a daily basis--sometimes together--in our narrow social circles (kind of like Salem.) So, am I guilty of shielding a rapist? I don't think so. But I am burdened by knowledge I could never act on. So are most of us.

    It's the same with Goldschmidt. It's gratifying now to know the whole state knows he's a scumbag, but blaming anyone who heard a rumor--or even a detailed recounting from a reliable source--for not making a public stink about a rape is revisionist history. Giusto and every other cop in the world knows of many crimes and rumors of crimes that can never be prosecuted. Sometimes they talk about it. So what?

    If anyone knew with certainty that the "rumors" about Goldie were true, they should have distanced themselves as much as possible despite his political power. But without proof to diminish his power, a perfect distance would never have been possible to create.

  • You're all a bunch of douche bags! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He knew or he didn't know. His actions make him look completely guilty.

    [Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Meaning little could be done to diminish Goldschmidt's lock on state political access and power.

    There are many people, like Kulongoski, who helped build and perpetuate that power. And they benefited from doing so. What happened to anyone who did disassociate themselves from Goldschmidt? They are not in the Governor's chair.

    If Jamais had promoted his friend's rapist for election as governor and then served in his adminstration, I am not sure he should be held blameless.

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    Not to take away from your column, but I'm curious to know BlueOregon's response to hate speech (ala Paddy and the comment above). The use of "dyke" is a form of hate speech and so is "slut" (particularly when talking about a rape victim).

  • (Show?)

    If anyone knew with certainty that the "rumors" about Goldie were true, they should have distanced themselves as much as possible despite his political power.

    And isn't that exactly the proof that Kulongoski didn't know anything definitive?

    Keep in mind that Goldschmidt was appointed and confirmed a the U.S. Secretary of Transportation - a post that requires an in-depth FBI background check and the crucible of a U.S. Senate confirmation.

    Folks who heard the rumor likely would have thought, "Well that's bullshit - the FBI would have nailed him on it."

    And for the record, I think Steve Duin is a pretty damn good columnist - I just think he got ahead of himself on this one.

  • Purple (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Im confused here guys, Steve didnt get his information from a single source....he received it from a 9-page affadavit:

    In June, Leonhardt submitted a nine-page affidavit to the agency. "At their request," he said in an e-mail, "I took and passed a polygraph exam called a 'confirmation test' based on the information in the affidavit."

    The core message of that affidavit hasn't changed in the past four years: Many people kept Goldschmidt's skeleton locked in the closet for his advancement and their own, Leonhardt writes, "but none more so than Sheriff Giusto and Governor Kulongoski through their passive complicity and moral abdication."

    In addition he follows up with Leonhardt and quotes him. Hardly shoddy journalism. In addition, to your question of whether this is news or not, Steve answers it in the third paragraph of the story:

    At the end of a 51/2 month investigation by Oregon's Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, Giusto has been informed the agency has "substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state."

    The news is that this investigation just closed. At least thats how I read it....and it is pertinent and newsworthy.

    At the end of the day, the question isnt really whether 'K' knew about it in 1991 or if he believed the rumor....I think the question would be if, as AG he should have done his due diligence to pursue this. I think that Steve's column is fair in the sense that if he did know, and was told about this, did he merely ignore (as rumor, which is understandable) it, or did he hide it? That doesnt seem clear, since 'K' isnt really speaking.

    You may not like that he wrote it, Kari, but it doesnt strike me as an 'agenda' piece, as you suggest.

  • (Show?)

    You people are really something! You just ooze integrity. Just like our governor.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari,

    I know many women and a few men who thought Mike Dukakis was a hunk.

    Also, I wonder if Paddy is the same person who used to call my cable access program to ask if my co-host and I were cross dressers. I think it has something to do with compensating for feelings of inadequacy - or possibly projecting a fantasy.

  • (Show?)

    I think the question would be if, as AG he [Kulongoski] should have done his due diligence to pursue this. I think that Steve's column is fair in the sense that if he did know, and was told about this, did he merely ignore (as rumor, which is understandable) it, or did he hide it? - "Purple"

    That would seem to be an important question to answer, if for no other reason than to (hopefully) put these accusations to rest.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rob Kremer quotes and thinks he's done something. What he has managed to do is make it clear that the accuser gave the Gov third hand information, that is rumor, that is all it qualifies as. 'A' told 'B' and 'B' told 'C'. Since 'A' claimed no personal information, but 2nd hand to him, there seems to be a real problem with 'C' making accusations of a particularly nasty nature.

    Once you reason backward from something established as fact it is pretty easy to make rumors look more persuasive and fact oriented than any reasonable person would at the time.

    I'd be pretty hot if I were the Gov, though maybe handle it differently.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, The use of "dyke" and "slut" are over the top here. I know we swear freely and call one another names, but both are offensive and completely inappropriate in this context, well, in any context. Not that you have to answer Paddy, but can you screen a few of these? Thanks!

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What's the rub here! Even if what Leonhardt says is true, at best it suggests he was passing on another rumor. Around that time I heard a rumor that the reason Goldschmidt wasn't running for a second term was that he had an extra-marital affair with another woman and had coerced her into having an abortion. I shrugged it off as unfounded dirt someone wanted to circulate. So, if I were a govt. official then, ( I wasn't), would I have been obligated under law to turn report this to law enforcement? I have been in a professional role to be a mandatory reporter (child abuse, elder abuse, etc.) Even then I was never required to report rumors.

  • (Show?)

    Karol,

    Speak for yourself......LOL Some of my very best friends are Dykes and Sluts and they would be offended if you did not refer to them as much. I even married one that at one time or another was one or the other....but that is a story we are not going to get into....LOL The point is there is a time and a place for everything and though I agree with you the way the terms were used in this thread was not polite. I reject that these two works are "Bad".

    :)

    Fred

  • (Show?)

    Fred, sounds like you lucked out in the wife department!! LOL

  • (Show?)

    So let me get this straight.

    You are at a party, and a trusted friend pulls you aside, and tells you that the host of the party just confirmed to you for a third time that your close business associate:

    1) raped a 14 year old, 2) had paid her off, 3) told you the names of the lawyers who negotiated the pay off, and 4) explained how the host came to know this information (because the host has a relationship with the rapists ex-wife, and the settlement required opening the divorce decree.)

    So, you would just pass that off as a “rumor” and continue your business relationship with the person? Just a third-hand rumor that has no credibility?

    OK.

  • (Show?)

    Karol,

    I agree, and as my earlier comment suggests, hate speech needs to be screened. There's one thing about using those words, Fred, in friendly company, where there's a presumption of safety, but they have no place here, particularly when used in obviouly derogatory ways.

    Hate speech is not funny, LOL material.

  • Myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Duin's column was indeed "over the top." Kulongoski denied knowing about Goldschmidt's sex abuse THREE YEARS AGO. Story over. Duin brings it up again simply because Leonhardt recently wrote a long letter to some state agency, offering lots of details that he has recently remembered. Why should Kulongoski respond to that sort of idiocy--especially in the middle of a terrorist exercise in which all involved, including the press, are supposed to be acting like it's the real thing?

  • (Show?)

    Karol and Kristin, I agree - and I'm editing the comments now. Sorry to have left it up for so long, I was off getting some work done and trying to avoid being blog-obsessive... :) Sorry about that.

  • (Show?)

    Purple: A one-source "fact" is still just one source if it comes with an affidavit. Also, the "investigation" of which you speak relates to Giusto - not Kulongoski.

    As a state police trooper, Giusto did have the responsibility to investigate. Further, the allegations with him are that he actively worked to help Goldschmidt cover it up (by driving him to meetings with the young woman.)

    And Rob, if what you say is true, then the question arises -- why didn't Giusto leave the party and go arrest Goldschmidt? He was a state trooper. If what you say is true, but Giusto didn't go arrest the molester, then what's Kulongoski to think? Clearly - nothing there.

    And one more time: If Kulongoski, deep down in his heart, thought there was some truth to it - would he have made Goldschmidt the chairman of his campaign, and appointed him to the State Board of Higher Ed?

    Even Kulongoski's opponents can't think he's that stupid.

  • (Show?)

    It wasn't even appropriate for the question to be asked during that news conference. As if he could have answered anyway, since he can't comment on an ongoing legal matter.

    All he could say is what he said today - he'll cooperate with State Bar.

    From the KGW story today:

    "The first thing I want to do is issue an apology for a misunderstanding... undersecretary Paulson was there. And this was about Top Off and it was his press conference and it was about him, not me... And I wasn't mad," Kulongoski said.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Kari!

    Paddy has one more charming use of words up the comment string...

  • breaking news (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kulongoski scoffs at ethics complaint Posted by The Oregonian October 18, 2007 12:07PM Categories: Politics, Top Stories Gov. Ted Kulongoski said today there is no merit to an ethics complaint against him.

    Earlier this week, conservative talk show host Lars Larson filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar seeking an investigation into whether Kulongoski, a lawyer, lied to the public when he denied knowing about former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt's sex abuse of an under-age girl before it became public.

    Goldschmidt's confessed decades after the abuse occurred.

    Kulongoski had avoided answering questions about the complaint all week - including walking out of a news conference Wednesday. But Thursday, while in Portland as part of the Topoff counterterrorism drill, the governor addressed reporters on the topic.

    He apologized for walking out on reporters, then said he planned to cooperate fully with any Bar investigation. He said it would be inappropriate to comment on the complaint because it is part of an investigation.

    "As you can imagine this is a difficult time for me and my family," Kulongoski said. Asked why, he said, "It's just a personal issue."

    As he was leaving, he was asked whether Larson's complaint had any merit. "None," Kulongoski replied.

  • dyspeptic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anybody who doubts that at least 40 people around Goldshmidt knew about this wasn't living in this town at that time. If it started in the 70's and wasn't exposed in major publications 'til the 90's, LOTS of people were pretending not to know. This was a much smaller town in the 70's, and even the 80's. Too many of these guys spent too many nights drinking together at Frank Peters' little place and the VQ over those years not to have known about it. Come to think of it, didn't Peters go up for doing and pimping teen girls? Neil should have gone up with him, if there was any justice.

    Then, too, what about the girl's mom? Word is that she countenanced it in order to keep her job on NG's payroll. Stinkeroo!

  • The Media Sucks (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, who exactly said she was actually raped/abused in the first place and didn't just have consentual underage sex?

  • Grant Schott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My guess is that most people didn't know before 1990, but a lot probably did know after 1990. Goldschmidt didn't disappear after he left office in '91 and wasn't exactly dissed by the establishment. The progressive politician became Mr. Corporate whore lobbyist who worked for Aaron Jones, Weyerhauser, SAIF, etc... His name was still in great demand for endorsements, fundraisers, etc... (For full disclosure, Goldschmidt came out to The Dalles in Oct. 1996 to raise money for the first candidate I worked for, Kevin Campbell for state senate who narrowly lost to Ferrioli. I had heard the rumor about Neil in '95 as an intern in the legislature, but without specifics, and thought it might be just a smear to scare him away from a senate campaign.) Neil probably could have carried on in that fashion, but he became much more visible in '03 when he popped his head up to facilaite a PGE buyout (with his wife on the investment board helping him) and was nominated for the State Board of Higher Ed. That became too much for the likes of Vicki Walker and Willamette Week. Goldschmidt used poor judgrement (again) in reappearing as a public figure, as did anyone who knew the full story but who still remained closely associated with him.

  • (Show?)

    Media Sucks dude,

    Please go look up "statuatory rape." jeez. Avoid teenagers until you do.

  • (Show?)

    Kristin - Word, two times. How in the world is it ever OK for a grown-ass man to rape a 14 year old? Plus, the man knows the laws, no excuses.

  • Jack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This whole thing is moronic, IMHO. I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Democrats/liberals, but this kind of blatant partisan smearing is one of the many reasons I refuse to join the Republican Party. Their grasping at straws just shows how irrelevant and intellectually/morally bankrupt so-called "conservatives" in this state have become. Sure would be nice to have an opposition party that actually stood for something, had some good positive ideas, and didn't stoop to lowest common denominator smear tactics. Throwing poo like a pack of rabid monkeys is not going to get Republicans elected statewide.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In certain occupations, reporting suspicion of child abuse is mandatory. Obviously being a political speechwriter isn't one of them. But did no one at the girl's school or elsewhere suspect anything? Or were adults not as aware of such possibilities back then?

    Where were the parents of the 14 year old? Oops, they aren't public figures, and if Lars or anyone else went after them that might look bad.

    This strikes me as scandal mongering. And for those who say "but there is an affadavit", are 100% of affadavits completely true?

    Has no one ever gotten into trouble for an affadavit which turns out to be hearsay?

    Somehow "small talk " while someone is pouring wine doesn't strike me as proof ---even if it is in an affadavit.

    I agree with "And the late '80s & early '90s wouldn't be the key time anyway -- if there were people who knew in the '70s close to the time it happened and didn't step up to call N. G. out and make sure the girl got help, that's where I'd see culpability. "

    As I recall the 1970s, Goldschmidt left the Mayor's office to work as a Cabinet secretary in DC. Was there any attempt by the parents to get help for the girl while he was not living in the state? What was the status of statutory rape prosecutions back then--was there the equivalent of a Special Victims Unit in Portland? Was CASA organized back that long ago? Was there any attempt to investigate whether he had done wrong while he was out of state?
    Or is that asking for a level of seriousness not wanted by the "we heard rumors at a party" crowd.

  • DanS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're all dancing around the main concern:

    A person running for and elected as Governor is held to a higher standard of leadership than are most other occupations. Leaders, and aspring leaders, do things not because they are legally required to, but rather, because they see it as a responsibility.

    We expect more of people striving for the highest levels of leadership. You can say it isn't relevant, but it is.

    Gov K better address this quickly or it will hang around and bite the D's come next year.

  • (Show?)

    Has no one ever gotten into trouble for an affadavit which turns out to be hearsay?

    The legal standard for an affidavit is that it should be true to the best of the "knowledge and belief" of the affiant.

    Most affidavits are sworn and depending upon the circumstances, if they contain deliberate falsehoods, perjury penalties can be applied.

    If an affidavit contains hearsay, then under most circumstances that part of its content is not admissible in a trial, but if the affiant believes the hearsay, it's not perjury to put it into the affidavit.

  • Purple (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I didnt say that the affadavit was true or not. My point was that this wasn't Steve merely calling this gentleman and facilitating a quote, he cited his source (the affadavit) and gave both the gentleman and 'K' and opportunity to respond to the fact that "At the end of a 51/2 month investigation by Oregon's Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, Giusto has been informed the agency has 'substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state.'"

    and that the "The agency believes Giusto may have lied about, among other matters, his knowledge of Goldschmidt's sustained abuse of the teenage girl while Goldschmidt was mayor of Portland."

    Sure, you may think that its one source, but in reality, its two with an opportunity at a third, if 'K' was willing to speak. Characterizing this as shoddy reporting is way off base, IMHO...and with the latest developments, maybe Steve wasnt way ahead on this....maybe he was right on point, considering.....

    Now, 'K' responds with a very curious release and comment in regards to the investigation....this makes me wonder if Steve maybe is on to something after all.

    As for, why would 'K' appoint him as chairman of the campaign? Simple, because it would get 'K' votes....unless, Kari, you really believe that politicians always think ethically when it comes to getting elected.

  • Registered Indy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can we start moving onto issues that will affect the entire state?

    I met Governor Kulongoski many of times and he is a very honorable man. Maybe not the best governor we have had: but one who really cares about the people of the state and making sure the right legislation is passed for the state. A tireless worker on many issues and truly a caring human being.

    I love how Republican hack job sorry for an excuse for a party start bringing nonsense up again. Hell why don't we ask any members of the watergate scandal still alive to fess up more. Wait we can even ask Oliver North and Clarence Thomas for more information about Iran Contra or sexual harassment.

    That was in the past and we don't have any proof or knowledge of the Governor knowing anything and he denies knowing anything. Ted has been a man of his word consistantly and we should respect what he has said. I love when a political party is hurting and has nothing to contribute to real issues or the direction of the country because they messed it up. They start writing hack journalism from twenty years ago that does not have any bearing on the course of the state or the nation.

    Why don't you grow a pair of balls and admit RON Saxton lost because he ran a John "Kerryesque" Campaign with nothing positive to contribute to the state. The president and the Republican Congress from 2002 ruined the country, our reputation as a county, and are running for the hills.

    Or you can continue to lose registered Independents like myself, because you have nothing to add to real issues for real people. One more thing you guys (aka republicans) have become insane. The definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Stay on the issues

    Thank you, A registered Independent

  • Thirteenburn (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari proves yet again, the glaring fact that the collective stupidity of the liberal, Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty.

    It's also obvious that Kari has no problem with pedophilia and child molestation as that's EXACTLY what Goldschmidt did BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, so the fact that the corpulent Kari is all angry that THE WORST GOVERNOR IN OREGON HISTORY (not really a stretch for ANY Democrat to achive) is being called on what he knew, well, my above statement stands.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nobody ever wondered if Mike Dukakis ever had an affair.

    Hey now Kari, whatcha talking about? I think he's Hot Hot Hot! But not as Hot as Al Gore. :)

  • (Show?)

    Kari, you forgot the part about "I make my living making Democrats look good on the internet, but I speak only for myself when I apologize for the governor's role in the biggest political scandal in state history, involving the person he owes his career to and one of the most heinous crimes imaginable."

    If Ted had told the truth in '04, this whole thing would have gone away. But he apparently didn't (his performance storming off the Topoff stage doesn't bespeak noesty), and the issue didn't.

    "Oh me oh my, why won't this bullshit go away?" Because it's true, and it still stinks to high heaven.

  • Kija (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lars Larsson and Steve Duin would have more standing if they likewise urged Bar complaints against Dennis Hastert and the GOP leadership aware of Mark Foley's depradations. As it is, it's typical It's OK If You Are Republican double standards.

    As to whether Kulongoski knew, I don't know, but until we have better evidence than this, we must take him at his word.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Many people kept Goldschmidt's skeleton locked in the closet for his advancement and their own, Leonhardt writes, "but none more so than Sheriff Giusto and Governor Kulongoski through their passive complicity and moral abdication."

    I'll pose a question that, surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else ask yet:

    If Leonhardt knew that the story about Goldschmidt and the babysitter was true, why the hell didn't HE tell the police???

    Could it have been because he didn't know if it was solid? If that was the case, why should he expect Kulongoski to report it to the authorities?

    Would you or any rational person go to the cops and tell them: "Somebody told me that somebody told him that somebody I know is a child molester"? If you did they'd laugh at you.

    I don't know what angle(s) Leonhardt is working, but my gut tells me he's not simply acting as a public-spirited citizen.

  • (Show?)

    I want to make one thing crystal clear: What Goldschmidt did was horrible and evil. It's a crime, and it's unfortunate that he was never prosecuted for it.

    The above folks who think I'm making apologies for that are way off base.

    To date, there's no evidence that Kulongoski knew a damn thing about it - other than the say-so of one guy. I'm just making the argument that there's plenty of reason why Kulongoski might not have gone running to the cops with his hair on fire if and when he heard a sex-scandal rumor regarding Goldschmidt. There were many of those going 'round back then.

    Furthermore, while Kulongoski is clearly an ambitious politician, I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester. That, all by itself, tells me that Kulongoski didn't think he had a definite conclusion on the truth of whatever rumor(s) he may or may not have heard.

    [And yes, Jack, you're right - I should disclose: In 2002 and 2006, I worked on Governor Kulongoski's campaign website. He's no longer a client, and I speak only for myself.]

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Throwing poo like a pack of rabid monkeys is not going to get Republicans elected statewide."

    LOL! Great line, Jack -- wish I had thought of it. It falls trippingly off the tongue.

    The rabid monkey routine won't get them elected nationwide, either -- not anymore. Americans have had a bellyful of Rovian slime tactics.

    Of course when your party has no ideas and no leadership and can't even offer basic competence, what else can you do?

  • Purple (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think you are missing the point, Kari.

    The issue isnt whether he knew or not, the issue is, that as AG, did Kulongoski have a responsibility to pursue the allegations...considering this was someone in elected office. Maybe he had a conflict of interest and chose to ignore it, but again, as a private citizen, thats your choice, as AG, I dont know if you have the same ability to choose. And further, if he heard of these rumors, he had a responsibility to check on those before appointing him to any role on his campaign, or risk egg on his face (which appears to be the case now). If he swept it under the rug, thats on him, and he deserves any and all criticism from Steve, or anyone else....and no cries of "foul."

    Furthermore, while Kulongoski is clearly an ambitious politician, I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.That, all by itself, tells me that Kulongoski didn't think he had a definite conclusion on the truth of whatever rumor(s) he may or may not have heard.

    Again, im surprised as to the naive nature to this statement, considering how involved you have been in campaigns and the relative consistency of news that has come out about politicians and their scandals....not to mention, it seems clear to me that Kulongoski doesnt want to talk about this, in spite of the fact that if he truly didnt know, what difference would it make?

    "As you can imagine this is a difficult time for me and my family," Kulongoski said. Asked why, he said, "It's just a personal issue."

    Really, how is it personal? How is it difficult? If you didnt know.....what difference does it make....but if you did know and now its coming out, how could you really look at yourself in the mirror.....

    And for the record...as a voter, I feel its more important to hold the people who I believe have the right ideas about the direction of my state and my country accountable, maybe even more so than those I dont see eye to eye on, because more so than just voting for these people, I am trusting that they stand by their words and their ethics.

    So if I seem to be harsher on people like Merkley, Novick and Kulongoski (and Kari, to an extent since he does have a voice when it comes to politics in this state), its because my expectation is not to be asked to give a pass, or to follow blindly and ignore any warts....which is what many of these politicians and commentators are asking for. Lay it to me truthfully and ill be the judge, and if you dont want to play the game that way, I will demand that you do, or risk losing my vote and support.

    This column strikes me as ignoring the issue and attempting to coat it with another accusation...in spite of the fact that recent actions (ie: the 'K' press conference today) clearly changes the tone and newsworthiness of this story.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Would you or any rational person go to the cops and tell them: "Somebody told me that somebody told him that somebody I know is a child molester"? If you did they'd laugh at you.

    It is easy to spread rumors of the "we were at a party and we heard..." variety.

    But anyone who has ever witnessed a traffic accident or anything else which involves police action knows what it involves. Police get the statement in writing, and it could eventually go before a grand jury. Questions can get very specific--in reporting a hit and run, for instance, it could be "what road were you on, what did you see, what did the vehicle look like, what road did it turn on?", that sort of thing.

    We are told there is an affadavit. When was it made, where, who was present (lawyers? law enforcement?) and under what circumstances?

    A comment above says "The victim had a lawyer and a therapist who was willing to testify in a lawsuit to the damage she had suffered from Goldschmidt’s abuse."

    Was this after the statute of limitations ran out? Why did no one swear out a complaint before the statute of limitations ran out? Is it the fault of people at a party that there was no complaint sworn out? According to which legal authority?

    And who in law enforcement would consider it probable cause if an accuser who is not the victim of the crime said, "As other guests approached the bar, I went looking for Kulongoski. I dragged him to a quiet spot in a corner behind a couch. We sat on the floor for privacy and I told him everything I had heard from Giusto no more than ten minutes earlier."?

    Or does someone actually think they can shame a political opponent without actually talking to the authorities?

  • (Show?)

    The issue isnt whether he knew or not, the issue is, that as AG, did Kulongoski have a responsibility to pursue the allegations...considering this was someone in elected office.

    Well, first, let's get our facts straight. Goldschmidt left elected office in January 1991. Kulongoski wasn't Attorney General until January 1993.

    Second, you do know that Oregon's Attorney General doesn't prosecute crimes, right?

    From the AG's "about us" page:

    The Oregon Department of Justice is responsible for general counsel and supervision of all civil actions and legal proceedings in which the state is a party or has an interest. The Department, through the Attorney General, also has full charge and control of all the state's legal business that requires the services of an attorney or legal counsel. The Department is further responsible for the operation of a number of program areas designated by the legislature, such as child support, district attorney assistance, crime victim compensation, charitable activity enforcement and consumer protection services. The Department has a biennial budget of approximately $280 million and a staffing authorization of approximately 1200 employees, most of whom are located in Salem.

    The Criminal Justice section of DOJ does this:

    The Criminal Justice Division was created within the Department of Justice in 1974 to address the need for coordination in the law enforcement community. The programs and functions administered and performed within the Division provide support and line services as well as act as a statewide multipurpose catalyst to Oregon law enforcement efforts.

    In Oregon, criminal prosecutions are done the District Attorneys in each county.

    Of course, if Kulongoski had definitive proof - or even a reasonable allegation - I'd expect him, like any other person, to report that allegation to the police.

    Which does beg the question that Dartagnan asked above: Why didn't Leonhardt report Goldschmidt to the cops?

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    dartagnan has it right. Kari's also correct. Steven Duin is making a lot of assumptions by blindly accepting one person's word on this.

  • wildcat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a social worker, I do not believe even if Kulongoski had asked NG about the rumor he would have received an honest answer. Who are we kidding?! I, too, hold the source with a lot of suspicion. Why bring it up again unless it is to juice up the low ratings of an horrific talk show host or increase readership? It's done. It's over. I just see it as another use of distraction to not focus on the real issues such as health care, the war, corruption, and so on. I have no opinion on Guisto other than I feel sorry for the guy if what is said is true and if it isn't, I would feel even worse for this character assination attempt. Enough!!!

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You are at a party, and a trusted friend pulls you aside, and tells you that the host of the party just confirmed to you for a third time that your close business associate:

    1) raped a 14 year old, 2) had paid her off, 3) told you the names of the lawyers who negotiated the pay off, and 4) explained how the host came to know this information (because the host has a relationship with the rapists ex-wife, and the settlement required opening the divorce decree.)

    An equally valid description:

    "At a party, someone you worked with, repeated a story he had been told by the host about how the ex-wife of the former Governor, Transportation Secretary and Mayor of Portland, who he was involved with, had told him a story about how Goldschmidt had molested a 14 year old girl 20 years earlier and was now being sued."

    And Kari - Steve Duin is a columnist, not a reporter. You ought to recognize the difference.

    If Leonhardt really was Kulongoski's "trusted friend", it was obviously a mistake on Kulongoski's part to trust him.

    Why didn't Leonhardt report Goldschmidt to the cops?

    That is one question. The other question is why was he repeating the story to Kulongoski? I can't think of an answer to either question that doesn't damage Leonhardt's credibility.

  • Purple (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My point regarding 'K' being an AG dealt more with the fact that as an elected (or appointed) official, who hears of this....dont you have a responsibility to reach out to your sources and determine if this has merit?

    Even if he didnt believe the rumors, doesnt he have some sort of responsibility to tell his "friend" that this is being said about him?

    Thanks for the lessons regarding AGs Kari, I am and was aware of the role that AGs have....still doesnt get to the point that, based on A) his reaction at the Press Conference and B) his statement today...there is something to be said and argued when it comes to what he knew and what he did with it.

    No different than when republicans hid Foley's misdeeds even though they had a responsibility (as elected or appointed officials) to shed light on it.

    You want to say "it was a rumor, everyone spreads rumors" but if you are a teacher and rumors spread that a student is planning on shooting up the school, do you dismiss this as a "rumor" or do you pursue it and determine the merits?

    'K' wasnt a private citizen, with access and the means to be able to decipher fact from fiction. If he didnt bother to confront the person and ask him point blank, instead choosing to ignore it, thats on him, if he did know and in fact was aware of it, thats even worse. I think its fair to say (and clear based on the recent coverage) that he did neither. Now, the real question then becomes, is that the type of public official you want?

  • Mad as hell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For the sake of my post can we assume everything we know about Goldschmidt and the "girl" is true. That he molested this child through his charm and power.

    My question has always been. Where was her MOTHER!? She seems to be the one who has escaped all scrutiny. She is the one who got a job with the Foreign Service and became an Ambassador, right? Did I misunderstand something in the story about her mother getting a good Foreign Service job?

    I am appalled by this whole thing. But mostly I am appalled by her mother not defending her child and protecting her against anyone who would sexually molest her. As a parent I can tell you if anyone did this to my child I'd be telling the world. I would have shouted it from the roof tops till someone listened and took action.

    I care a little less about whom knew what when. I think the mother is the one we should be putting up on the pole and asking her why she allowed this to happen and why in the H-- didn't she tell someone, anyone before now. And why isn't she defending her child today.

    And this heartless women still refuses to talk. Why go after the Governor or the Sheriff? Why not go after the mother who did nothing to protect her child.

  • (Show?)

    Karol,

    You think I lucked out? I was a Marine at the time so meeting a woman like my ex was anything BUT offensive....LOL

    Kristin you are right about Hateful Words/Hate Speach. I was just having fun at the expence of the troll. Red Blooded Repubican males like that troll are quite jealous of what Kari and a few others have developed here so from time to time they are going to chime in here and drop a turd or two.

    As if Kair being being a dyke would be a bad thing. Kair as a dyke would RULE in a couple clubs I know. The more I think about it, I think I am going to go dyke. It might help me and my girlfriend meet more women.....LOL

    Fred

  • Hang the mom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey - Mad as hell - you are RIGHT ON!

  • (Show?)

    Mad As Hell,

    I ask where was the FATHER? How come the Gov did not have to worry about some fatherly justice here? What did the father get out of this? I know if some knob did this to my daughter, I would be dragging his sorry behind into Washington State so I can assault him and avoid measure 11 charges in Oregon.....LOL I do not think I have heard anything from the Mother or Father on this. Makes me wonder what role they might have had in this. Who knows, maybe they were intimidated? Point being it is strange the people that should have protected this girl seem to have not been able to or interested.

    Fred

  • libbie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whether Ted knew or did not know about Neil's criminal acts isn't the point here. It is obvious that Lars Larsen hates Ted Kulingowski and is determined to get at him any way that he can. Lars is very vindictive and hates Democrats and lies repeatedly to sway his audience. It is a shame that they even allow persons like Lars on the radio to spew their hate and devisiveness. If you listen to him for one day you can get him on many falsehoods.

  • Mad as hell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I had not thought about the "dad" - never heard him mentioned - ever, ever. You are right - a shotgun in my basement would have been put to good use if it had been my Dad.

    We all know we cannot prosecute based on rumors (yet). But the parents could have and should have come forward, what they knew was NOT a rumor.

    I would not know this Leonardt guy if I tripped over him - but shame on him for not telling someone who could help this girl when it would have mattered! Before her life was destroyed.

    And what about all those "Irvington" liberals who hung out together - why did none of them say a word.

    Damn them all for this. Not the Governor and Not the Sherriff!

  • Paddy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A commenter wrote: "Also, I wonder if Paddy is the same person who used to call my cable access program to ask if my co-host and I were cross dressers. I think it has something to do with compensating for feelings of inadequacy - or possibly projecting a fantasy."

    [offensive language removed. -editor.]

    ...come on! Please lighten up, already.

    I'm already decided on this issue of GG and GK (remember I'm a sniff-test Savant).

    Kick me off this thread please: Simply let me know if Kari is a dude or a [offensive language removed. -editor.]. (Kari: Please answer and I go bye-bye forever.)

    Thank you.

  • t (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This whole Kulongoski rumor smells like a coup brewing to me. Remember what happened in CA to Grey Davis? Someone, possibly not even from OR seems to want Kulongoski unseated. Even if Kulongoski did know, what was he suppossed to do about it?? All of this happened at a time when Americans did not want to know about or hear about the foibles of their leaders. This was the case until a few crazies with wild imaginations went after a sitting President for a BJ in the Oval Office that was none of our business. The proper place for airing this misbehavior belonged in the sanctity of the family and their clergy, not on our Public Airwaves.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK, Teddy has basically had Neil's hand up his back for his entire career and has known him for 20+ years. Neil decides to make him a judge and then set him off on his political career culminating in governor. Neil, of course, being a string puller and Teddy being Neil's lapdog doesn't want to displease him.

    So, Teddy hears rumor about Neil being a pedophile and being a responsible citizen and judge to boot, put his hands over his ears and talks loud not to hear anything.

    Neil's happy and Teddy gets his jobs. As a favor, even after hearing about Neil and not investigating, he decides to promote his good buddy / godfather to the state board of higher education.

    Ted is one heck of a guy and this whole thing stinks. Don't confuse legal and ethical.

    Yes, Sexton is probably just as guilty.

  • Eric J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What Ted knew about or did not know about is really none of our business in the long run. It was a long time ago and we have better things to do in our lives that scream at each other and hurl obscenities. Reading through these posts make me realize that all of you are making mountains out of molehills and just are a little bit too uptight about all this. Now I know why some people just do not want to invole themselves in any kind of politics - no one likes to be screamed at, have obscenities and hate words hurled at them, or have obscene and unecessesary(sp) words to read through - especially in the title.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Riught on Eric J!

    And for those of you who think this is the most important possible subject to be discussing, I hope you will do something productive with your energies. If you really care about abused kids and not just about steamy scandals, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) can always use volunteers.

  • (Show?)

    It's not as if this was the only rumor going on at the time. From what I hear from people who were here at the time, there were dozens of rumors all going around. How was anyone supposed to know if one rumor was more credible than another.

    As to comparing this to California, it's not the same. If something were to happen and Governor Kulongoski were to have to leave office, or be removed from office, we don't vote on another governor. Secretary of State Bill Bradbury would become our governor.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To date, there's no evidence that Kulongoski knew a damn thing about it - other than the say-so of one guy.

    Let's be clear. . .it's the say-so of one guy who a state agency believes to be credible, after spending five months investigating his allegations against Guisto. That's a step below definitive proof, but a step above unproven say-so.

    Furthermore, while Kulongoski is clearly an ambitious politician, I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.

    Of course he didn't know for a fact whether it was true or not. The question is, did he try to find out? Or did he turn a blind eye -- as so many others probably did -- because he stood to benefit from Goldschmidt's power and influence? Let's remember the context of Goldschmidt's role up to the day this crime became public. He was the godfather of Democratic politics in Oregon, still pulling strings, raising money, and boosting careers until the WW story hit the streets.

    The big question for me isn't whether Kulongoski knew for a fact that Goldschmidt was a child rapist. Of course he didn't know. The question is: At what point do you distance yourself from someone who you have repeatedly heard extremely negative rumors about, even though it might hurt your own career? At what point do you ask that person, directly, about the rumors? If Leonhardt is being truthful, Kulongoski must have faced these internal nagging questions when he nominated Goldschmidt to the State Board of Higher Education. They are tough moral and ethical questions, but they certainly should not be dismissed out-of-hand, as many partisans on this blog seem to be doing.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also, Kari, I'd really like your answer to one of the first posts: If this accusation was against Gordon Smith, would you be similarly outraged if Duin wrote a column about it? Or would you echo and amplify that accusation on this site? To those of us who don't spend all of our time in a partisan bubble, intellectual honesty is important.

  • (Show?)

    Ross Williams wrote, And Kari - Steve Duin is a columnist, not a reporter. You ought to recognize the difference.

    Yeah, I do. Columnists deal in opinion. But when they report facts, they have the same journalistic responsibility to do original reporting and confirm their facts.

    That's the difference between a columnist and a blogger. Duin's getting paid a large five-figure (six-figure?) salary to pump out a few thousand words a week. If he's no better than a blogger, the Oregonian is wasting its money.

  • (Show?)

    Steve wrote, Neil decides to make him a judge and then set him off on his political career culminating in governor.

    Jesus Christ, people. Check your FACTS please. Ted Kulongoski was elected to the Supreme Court in May 1996. He wasn't appointed by anybody.

  • (Show?)

    If this accusation was against Gordon Smith, would you be similarly outraged if Duin wrote a column about it?

    I don't have the foggiest clue.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, at least you're being honest, if not particularly intellectual.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That's the difference between a columnist and a blogger.

    There is no difference between a columnist and a blogger. Columnists have never been held to any journalistic standard other than to be entertaining and interesting. And I guarantee you the Oregonian's only standard is that he attract readers who their advertisers want to a reach and that he not offend any of the publisher's buddies at the Multnomah Athletic Club.

  • Inthewoods (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm Kari Chisholm I think there is something even bigger out there then what is happening and I think the reporters are on to something. Giusto is on the hot seat right now and there is a reason for that, what I’m not sure. Kulongoski is being asked question now and all but admitted guilt when he ran off that stage, that says to me that he knows something and people are probing for a huge story, what story I am not sure but this thing are heating up. People and I mean people who know something are being questioned, if the heat gets to hot people will talk. Rumor or not the Gov knows something and so do other people, the question is can people keep there mouths shut until this blows over or will they break. If Giusto goes down, he will take a lot of people with him. Kari, rumors are started because they tend to have some truth to them, rumors don’t get started just because, that is why they are rumors. Think back to when you were in highs school and all those rumors running around, there was always the ones about who slept with who, and at the 10 and 20 year reunions you found out that they were true. When there is a rumor at work about a layoff, is it a rumor? The company calls it cutbacks, was the rumor true? Ted was very close to Neil close enough to know that it wasn’t a rumor and that’s why he ran off that stage.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.

    There are plenty of politicians who would not pay much attention to rumors about an "affair", as the Oregonian termed it, between a politician and a young "woman". Just the way they weren't too concerned about Packwood's groping of women. These were no different than the consensual relationship between Clinton and Monica. Boys will be boys.

    In that frame, this story was interesting only in regard to what it meant for Neil Goldschmidt's future, whether it would become public and what that might mean for his friends. When this story first hit, there were people who started to step up to defend Goldschmidt. They didn't really recognize at first he was a child molester, not a just another guy who couldn't keep his fly zipped.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rumors are started because they tend to have some truth to them, rumors don’t get started just because,

    "Rumor has it ...."

    "Where did you hear that rumor, Dick?"

    Dick, "I just started it."

    That is an actual conversation, with the name of the political leader changed to protect the less than innocent.

    Only complete fools believe there has to be any truth to rumors, especially in political circles. There just has to be someone who benefits from telling (an re-telling) the story.

  • (Show?)

    Packwood grouping of several intelligent, well connected and powerful women is not the same as NG having sex with a 14 year old girl. To this day I feel Packwood was rail roaded. Who knows, Clinton could have been the payback for that crap. Regardless. I do not think any Oregon Politician would associate themselves, their families nor their supporters with anyone that was a known Child molester.

    If I am proven wrong about the Gov, I hope he does the decent thing and steps down.

    Fred

  • (Show?)

    Kari,

    Sorry to bother you, but Paddy has some more hate speech posted.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Packwood grouping of several intelligent, well connected and powerful women is not the same as NG having sex with a 14 year old girl.

    Packwood groped a lot of women, it was some well-connected, powerful women who finally came forward to call him on it.

    I do not think any Oregon Politician would associate themselves, their families nor their supporters with anyone that was a known Child molester.

    Oh no, not once it was known ... there aren't many politicians associating themselves with Bob Packwood either.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Kristin. He's gone.

  • t (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni, Thank You for clarification on the appt. of the SOS if the Governor was incapacitated. Actually, I have heard that before, but I completely forgot about it.

  • (Show?)

    There is no difference between a columnist and a blogger. Columnists have never been held to any journalistic standard other than to be entertaining and interesting.

    Interesting. That's not my understanding. I'm too busy today to do the research on the ethical standards that apply to columnists - but I'm pretty sure they do exist.

    Or maybe I should apply for a job at the O.

  • (Show?)

    Ugh...

    So did Kulongoski know or not know? He denied knowing anything and now ya'll are arguing that he knew rumors. Huh? Which is it?

    Then... Then (OK I am going to assume that he DID know something...) Kulongoski still decides to appong NG to the state board of higher ed? Huh?

    You know it would be one thing if he had heard about it and just bit his lip knowing that nothing could be done until and unless the victim came forward. OK... I'd grant him that. There just is not much one could do, and if they were friends then that aspect would play into the entire affair as well.

    But he went further. He decided to appoint NG to a statewide board KNOWING something and knowing some pretty deep details of that something. So does that mean he did not sit his friend down and say; "ok Neil what is with this story? I am about to name you as my appointment to this board and need to know the truth. If it is true then let's just head our seperate ways tonight quietly. OK?"

    He didn't. Or if he did then he is not saying.

    This is still a story because TK is still in office and Guisto is still sheriff.

    Oh and to say this is some right wing attack is just stupid talk. Are there any official announcments by the Republican party? By Ted Ferrioli? Anyone? Beuller?

    In my mind Kulongoski is guilty of the same thing that former Speaker Denny Hastert was guilty of. That is letting politics cloud your judgement of someone else in your own party. (Regarding Hastert's knowledge of the "Foley rumors." Incedentally there were PLENTY of Republican opion masters callng for Hastert to resign...)

    Anyone on this board wanna stand up for Republican Denny Hastert? Beuller?

    yip yip

  • (Show?)

    Oh fer cryin' out loud, Coyote. Read the post. This is an "even if" argument.

    Kulongoski says he didn't hear this specific rumor. But I'm saying that EVEN IF he did, it would be in the context of dozens of other wild-ass rumors.

    Kulongoski still decides to appong NG to the state board of higher ed? Huh?

    WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT! (Well, the point originally made above by Dartagnan.)

    The surefire giveaway that Kulongoski didn't know anything solid was that he appointed Goldschmidt to the state board.

    You may not like Kulongoski, but let's be honest - he's not a political daredevil. He wouldn't do something suicidal.

  • (Show?)

    Or maybe I should apply for a job at the O.

    Sorry, Kari, you aren't far left enough to write for the Oregonian.

  • (Show?)

    That's hilarious. Far left enough? Yeah. Me and David Reinhard.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Jesus Christ, people. Check your FACTS please."

    OK, already, I messed up. After he gave up at the state legislature and couldnt function in a real world job, Neil made him insurance commissionet and still pulled his strings.

    "The surefire giveaway that Kulongoski didn't know anything solid was that he appointed Goldschmidt to the state board."

    Please, look up hubris, once they get to this level they think they can get away with anything. WHy do you think Bernie has a death grip on that job after all of the crap he has pulled. Neil wanted to be respectable, so he told Ted to put him on the board of higher education. Meanwhile, Diana, the wife, had, ahem, a few ethics issues after being appointed to OIC with some of Neil's friends. Also, don't discount Ted's string pulling to get Steve Goldschmidt a job with PPS tha was rather expensive.

    Ted does what Neil tells him to do. Yes, Saxton is probably as guilty. Heck, Sam and the rest of City Council are probably still lunching with Imeson, Neil's former partner.

    Go ahead and ignore it if you want.

  • (Show?)

    After he gave up at the state legislature and couldnt function in a real world job

    You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

    By "gave up at the state legislature and couldn't function in a real world job", you actually mean - after Kulongoski unsuccessfully ran for Governor in 1982 and for the U.S. Senate in 1984. Right?

  • STeve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Correct, he couldn't win election or get a prodcutive until Neil picked him up and gave him another govt job. So Neil has been holding his hand for a long while.

  • dyspeptic (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with the analogy to Hastert/Folley. Same difference.

    Also agree with the questions about the parents. Who were/are they, and how have they benefited? Sounds like the mom pimped the daughter to NG in return for career favors. What about the dad? If it had been my daughter, NG would at least be singing soprano, if not pushing up daisies.

    Anybody who wants this laid to rest needs to get on the path of "truth and reconciliation". The bottom line is that without a full exposure and discussion of the truth, any attempt at reconciliation is futile. Public interest in this is not going to go away until there is some sense of truth and justice. Right now, it still stinks to high heaven.

  • myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, your facts are decidedly incorrect. Kulongoski was for years (including while he was a legislator) the senior partner in the best employment law firm in the state. He gave that up job to direct the Dep't of Insurance and Finance, ran for and won the AG's position, ran for and won the Supreme Court position, and ran for and won--twice--the governor's seat. In no way has Goldschmidt "been holding his hand." In fact, Kulongoski fired Goldschmidt's wife from the OIC.

  • myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    PS to Steve--Speaking of not being able to hold a productive job, how about that Fred Leonhardt? AS far as I can tell, he hasn't held a job since he worked for Neil Goldschmidt as a speech writer when Goldschmidt was governor. That was 20 years ago.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, your motives are right but your facts are wrong.

    By "gave up at the state legislature and couldn't function in a real world job", you actually mean - after Kulongoski unsuccessfully ran for Governor in 1982 and for the U.S. Senate in 1984. Right? ....................

    I was at a fundraising event in 1980 for Kulongoski for Senate, and remember very well Ted for Gov. 1982. The latter was an example of why it is smarter to talk about ones self instead of just talking about the opponent--Ted had an opportunity to appear on national television (some network speaking to major candidates around the country) and spent more time talking about what was wrong with Atiyeh than why Ted should be elected. Friends of mine bailed on the Gov. campaign in 1982 because they thought the hotly contested Cong. campaign against Denny Smith was more worth their time. Denny won that election by several votes per precinct (not the overly popular guy he thought he was).

    In 1984, the US Senate nominee was legislator Margie Hendricksen.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Kulongoski fired Goldschmidt's wife from the OIC."

    After he hired her, fully knowing Neil was on Texas Pacific's payroll.

  • (Show?)

    Ah, dammit. Thanks, LT. 1980 - U.S. Senate; 1982 - Governor.

  • myranda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve, once again you have failed to get your facts correct. Kulongoski did not appoint Diana Goldschmidt to the OIC "fully knowing Neil was on Texas Pacific's payroll" as you stated.

    From Willamette Week, July 26, 2005: "On Oct. 29, 2003, Diana Goldschmidt and the rest of the OIC voted to give a subcommittee the right to invest $300 million with Texas Pacific. Later that very same day Neil Goldschmidt received a call from David Bonderman, a Texas Pacific partner. Bonderman told him Texas Pacific wanted to make a bid for PGE and asked Goldschmidt to help."

  • Sally (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mad as Hell is completely correct. If the mother sold her daughter out for money and employment, no wonder the poor thing has mental problems. She was sexually exploited and betrayed.

    Without the girl's testimony and help of her parents, charges couldn't be brought. All the supposition is groundless when you ignore that fact.

    It's terribly sad. Remember that the only reason the sexual abuse by priests finally surfaced was after several boys in the same Boston parish started committing suicide when they reached 12 - 14. At that point, their parents probably regretted accepting hush money from the church to cover up the crime.

  • ... (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who is Dayle Williams -- in the context of many meetings with then-Gov Goldschmidt?

  • Larry K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Given the developments with Guisto over the last day or two, are you still so certain to call "bullshit"? By now, you gotta be wondering a bit...

  • (Show?)

    Giusto isn't Kulongoski. Two separate people, y'know.

  • Larry K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obviously. But Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent and it seems to be increasingly verified as accurate. I know Kulo is "your guy", but at some point, I'd hope that you might start to wonder just a little bit...

  • (Show?)

    I'm still reading my way through the draft DPSST report, and will comment on it shortly. So far, it's worth noting that Kulongoski's story has also been very consistent. He's never wavered a bit.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent "

    What bothers me most about this story is the people who say we should take Leonhardt at face value because they say so.

    He was a speech writer who apparently talked to some people at a party one December. As far as I can tell, that is all we are supposed to need to know about the guy.

    I'd like to know more: What he did before he was a speechwriter Why he left the speech writing job What he is doing now.

    This is about a crime which happened in the 1970s and discussion about it later.

    Comments like "seems to be increasingly verified as accurate" really bother me. Even if I had been living in Portland (never lived there) it is very unlikely I would have been at the famous party--not the same social circle. But this story is so thin it sounds like we should all believe certain accounts of this unless we are giving absolute faith to "our guy". We are all supposed to take sides about a story which seems driven more by hearsay than fact. Why?

    I have known people who have been victims of rumors in the past--often rumors which turned out to be not based on evidence. But in this case, I am supposed to believe a guy I never met about a crime in the 1970s which was not discussed until much later? Standard of proof doesn't matter because Neil committed a crime, no one wants to talk about what year the statute of limitations on that crime ran out, where the parents fit into this story, or anything fact based like that.

    A former speech writer spoke to someone at a party, that is all the evidence we should need?

    Is there no more important issue? Sounds like scandal mongering or someone with an agenda to me.

  • Larry K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey LT -

    You make a lot of good points, and in general I agree with many of them. I understand your trepidation.

    Let me start by making clear what my intent was with my posts earlier today... while I personally believe that Kulo knew more than he says, I don't KNOW that. So my intent was not to convict him here... it was to prod Kari a bit, who is a TOTAL KULO HOMER, and ask if he could still objectively look at new evidence as it becomes available. I don't know if that's possible, when the title of his post declares "bullshit".

    Moving past that... as far as "Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent", I'm taking that straight out of mouth of the WW reporter Nigel Jaquiss, who won the Pulitzer in 2005 for breaking this story in the first place. He's the guy who TODAY I heard say that there has been ONE person who's consistently been accurate and unflinching and that's Leonhardt. Even in the presence of some pretty intense scrutiny and pressure. To me, Leonhardt's statements are passing the "good ol' boy smell-test."

    On top of that, Leonhardt submitted to, and passed, a lie detector test. Everyone else is running away from that. I'd love to see Guisto or Kulo step up to the plate and strap on the electrodes. For that matter, I'd like to see Kulo not run off a stage when asked about this issue. The fact that he did so, REALLY says something to me.

    Leonhardt's on one side. On the other side, no one is submitting to polygraphs and in several cases, won't even sign an affadavit. I think that speaks volumes.

    You ask (in regards to Leonhardt): What he did before he was a speechwriter Why he left the speech writing job What he is doing now.

    I'm not sure what these questions have to do with anything? Please enlighten me. If the answers come back as something you find distasteful, would you try to discredit him based on that? Why else would you ask these?

    I understand your plea of "is there no more important issue?". Because we have a lot of things going on in Portland that I think need more critical thinking than has been applied in the past. But personally, the fate of streetcars, street renamings, Columbia River crossings, etc pale in comparison to the rape of a 14-year old and subsequent cover-up by the highest members of our elected gov't...

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What bothers me most about this story is the people who say we should take Leonhardt at face value because they say so.

    Actually, I take Leonhardt at face value because a state agency spent five months investigating the issue (with regards to Giusto) and not only found Leonhardt to be truthful and credible in that case, but found other witnesses that corroborated his story.

    Is it possible that Leonhardt told the truth about Guisto and lied about his interaction with Kulongoski? Yes. Is it possible that Leonhardt misremembered the extent of his interaction with Kulongoski? Yes. Is it possible that Kulongoski misremembered the extent of his interaction with Leonhardt? Yes. Is it possible that Kulongoski lied about what he knew and when he knew it? Yes.

    At this point, we don't have any answers about Kulongoski's involvement in this. But good Democrats will insist that we look into it further, even if it turns out Kulongoski did know something and the whole situation harms our party. The rape of a 14 year-old -- the only fact in this case -- should be enough for everyone to leave their party politics at the door.

    Personally, I'm a Kulongoski fan. But if it turns out that he was told that Goldschmidt may have raped a 14 year-old -- even if it was conveyed as a rumor -- I want to know a lot more about his thought process when he appointed Goldschmidt to the state Board of Higher Ed, because I cannnot jive those two things.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Larry K, I'd have more respect for you if you called the Gov. by a nickname he has had for years: Teddy K. Kulo sounds too close to Kujo who as I recall was a fictional vicious dog. Unless you mean to imply the current Gov. is as evil as the former Gov. who turned out to be a sexual predator.

    So, have you believed every story straight out of mouth of the WW reporter Nigel Jaquiss?

    Not that I want to do the research at this hour, but my nagging feeling is that he did a story in the past I didn't trust. But I should trust him now? Has WW never made a mistake in any of their stories?

    Yes, Neil Goldschmidt is guilty of a crime---but a crime 3 decades ago. The victim is now close to middle age, but we're not supposed to ask the role of her parents in all this because there are public figures who should be ashamed of themselves and nothing else matters? Why is it such a big deal now?

    I asked those questions about Leonhardt because a friend of my sister became a widow due to an angry former employee shooting his former supervisor, and I don't think it is impossible that if the former speech writer left under less than friendly circumstances there might be an agenda involved.

    Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say there is solid, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence that Guisto and Kulongoski found out about the crime at that Christmas party where the rumor was reportedly told (polygraph or not, short of evidence it is reportedly a story)--wasn't that a party in the 1990s? Was that before or after the statute of limitations ran out?

    Suppose that it is proved they had concrete evidence it wasn't a rumor, but they didn't say anything in the weeks they discovered the rumor was true. What then--disgraced, the public figures resign their jobs and leave the state of Oregon in shame? Is that what those saying this is an important issue in 2007 want?

    Recently I had an argument with a friend over an email quoting Teddy Roosevelt saying English should be the only language in the US. He wrote me "The point is that we encourage second languages or that it is a practical thing to have a second language? That is true, but that discussion takes away from the point that US Citizens identify and know or learn English!"

    I called him and said, "OK, we pass a resolution in Congress saying English is the official language of the US. What exactly does that do? Do we not have interpreters working for public safety and medical organizations?" He was startled because he wanted a philosophical discussion and I was concerned about the practicalities.

    I think the debate over this is a debate about philosophy vs. practicalities.

    I think there are more important issues than streetcars and street renamings--the war in Iraq, health care for all, economic stability for all. Suppose every public figure even remotely connected to this story "strapped on the electrodes". Is a polygraph 100% accurate? And how does that solve the problems of work, health care, the concerns of veterans and military families if you find out for once and for all that on a date certain a particular public figure found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that Goldschmidt belonged on the sexual predator list for the rest of his life?

    OK, debate this philosophical question: should all rumors be believed until proven otherwise, or only in this case? Suppose a rumor is true--what steps should be taken. Should it be reported to the police or to child protective services? What standard of proof do they require?

    Or is answering those questions hard work when people can just say things like To me, Leonhardt's statements are passing the "good ol' boy smell-test."

    I was deeply offended back when this story broke because reporters ambushed Gov. Ted when he was leaving a military funeral. He didn't deserve a moment of quiet after a funeral because scandalmongering reporters were more important than anything else?

    Larry, you said "...pale in comparison to the rape of a 14-year old and subsequent cover-up by the highest members of our elected gov't..."

    Are you saying that Guisto and Kulongoski are the highest members of our elected government? Or are you saying everyone elected to high office is guilty until proven innocent?

    I think the speculation has gotten out of hand. Yes, it was a tragedy that a 14 year old was raped, and had people known about it at the time do you really think Goldschmidt would have been in the Cabinet of Carter, the Baptist Sunday School teacher? But are you saying public figures knew about this during the years of the Carter presidency, or the Reagan/Bush years?, or the 1990s?, or the current decade? Where is your proof--that you believe Jaquis and Leonhardt, so everyone else should too? Ever heard the phrase "more to most things than meets the eye"?

    And if I was offended by the way the reporters treated the Gov. when the story first broke and he was leaving a military funeral, does that mean I don't care a crime was committed 3 decades ago because if I worry about destroying the decorum of a military funeral?

    Let's have a sense of proportion here. If you really think this is the most important story, do some research: find out the year the statute of limitations ran out, the role of the parents, why the Carter background check before NG became a Cabinet Secretary didn't find out about the crime, who the individuals were who knew about the crime before Neil G. ran for Gov. If you can't provide those basic details, I don't care if Leonhardt and Jaquiss swear on a stack of Bibles.

  • (Show?)

    But if it turns out that he was told that Goldschmidt may have raped a 14 year-old -- even if it was conveyed as a rumor -- I want to know a lot more about his thought process when he appointed Goldschmidt to the state Board of Higher Ed, because I cannnot jive those two things.

    To me, that's a HUGE piece of evidence that Kulongoski did not know.

    One of Kulongoski's faults is that he's a pretty cautious politician. So, given that well-known caution, why in the hell would be appoint Goldschmidt to anything?

    That's the tale of the tape, right there.

    As for being a Kulongoski "homer", well, you bet I am. I know him, and I trust him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt unless and until I see something other than the single-source allegation of a disgruntled former speechwriter that's not corroborated by anyone else.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, you were pretty tough on anyone in 2006 who didn't think Ted K. was the greatest thing since sliced bread and how dare anyone even look at the primary challengers or Ben W. for Gov.

    But I agree with you on the single-source allegation.

    I'm the sort of person that if a close political friend tells me something that doesn't jibe, I will check it out.

    But I am supposed to believe a WW reporter I am not fond of and a former speech writer because to do otherwise is to condone the rape of a 14 year old girl and coverup by famous people?

    And as for "but there is an affadavit", Al French ruined that in my eyes.

    Was it OK for Al French to use hearsay on his Swifty affadavit to be in the commercial and for him to write it on a work computer because, after all, he didn't rape a 14 year old or cover it up?

    Miles and Larry, if you don't like that paragraph, come up with more evidence.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, you were pretty tough on anyone in 2006 who didn't think Ted K. was the greatest thing since sliced bread and how dare anyone even look at the primary challengers or Ben W. for Gov.

    Tough? I dunno. Was I strongly advocating for someone I thought had done a good job in a tough situation? You bet.

    I also think I was fair in sharing BlueOregon with the challengers. Certainly, Pete Sorenson and Jim Hill and Ben Westlund (or their campaign staff) thought so and said so publicly.

    More on that for 2008 soon.

  • (Show?)

    So governor Kulongoski swears he did not even know the rumors?

    Yet the story that FL shares about hearing the (now we know it was certainly MORE than a rumor even then because of the amount of detail) "rumors" from BG is cooborated by BG.

    Somehow FL's memory has been pretty clear through this entire affair and has backed it all up with a polygraph and numerous other investigations (press and state).

    The party that FL was at DID actually happen. The party also had BG there. The party also had TK there. So you are telling me you do not think that FL, then a friend of the future governor, did not say a WORD to Kulongoski? Really? I mean is that what YOU would do if your friend was running for governor and you knew something about another political co-hort?

    Kari you know darned good and well that if you had a friend running for high political office. You learned that that friend had a confidante that had the potential history of being a child molester and his divorce was caused by it and that this confidante (or rainmaker or whatever) was paying off the victim... That you would not tell your friend to at least "watch out" or "better ask so and so about it" or something. ESPECIALLY if you were in a paid position of political influence.

    Hell that is what you are SUPPOSED to do.

    Kulongoski could have ended this a long time ago by saying that I heard the rumor. I asked Neil about it and he denied it. He was my friend and I believed him. I am guilty of believing a friend.

    However what probably happened is that Kulongoski asked Neil and Neil said that it is all taken care of. And Kulongoski being a loyal kinda guy, a few years later, wanted to pay back a political friend (hey they all do it, THAT is just a fact of political life) not thinking that any of this was going to come out.

    What does FL have to gain in this? Nothing. Yet everything to lose. What does governor Kulongoski have to gain by lying? Lots.

    THAT is what makes FL's story so compelling. The simple fact that he had the most to lose by saying anything and the most to gain by shutting up. To took the more difficult road.

    What road is governor Kulongoski taking?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Coyote, you said,

    "The party that FL was at DID actually happen. The party also had BG there. The party also had TK there."

    You know that because you were there? If so, how many people were there? What was the date of the party? Did you hear the rumor itself or actually see Kulongoski, Guisto and Leonhardt talking together?

    Or is this just more hearsay?

    It sounds like a lot of assumptions to me. But Coyote, if you were there, you can be the second source some of us are asking about. Of course, you'd have to be that source under your real name, not just a screen name.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT asks: Suppose that it is proved they had concrete evidence it wasn't a rumor, but they didn't say anything in the weeks they discovered the rumor was true. What then--disgraced, the public figures resign their jobs and leave the state of Oregon in shame? Is that what those saying this is an important issue in 2007 want?

    I can't speak for anyone else, but first and foremost I think this issue is important because Goldschmidt was able to avoid prosecution for child rape. Anyone who knew about Goldschmidt's actions BEFORE the statute of limitations ran out and didn't report it to the police (and it sounds like Guisto may fall into that category) aided and abetted Goldschmidt. In my opinion, that behavior should disqualify you from ever holding an important public office in this state. I hope we can all agree on that.

    As for people who found out after the statute of limitations and didn't do anything, this is important because Goldschmidt was able to remain the godfather of the DPO until the story broke. He served on boards and commissions, he raised money for Dems, he was a power broker, and he was appointed to the State Board of Higher Education. Anyone who knew about this story and still allowed Goldschmidt to operate as he did is guilty of a serious moral and ethical offense. And I think we owe it to ourselves to figure out who those people were and make it clear that we won't tolerate Republican-style cover-ups in our party.

    Kari writes: To me, that's a HUGE piece of evidence that Kulongoski did not know. One of Kulongoski's faults is that he's a pretty cautious politician. So, given that well-known caution, why in the hell would be appoint Goldschmidt to anything?

    The problem with this line of reasoning, Kari, is that it only works if Kulongoski really is an ethical, cautious politician. You know him and you're willing to vouch for him, which for me carries some weight. But not enough to say we shouldn't investigate further, because your argument doesn't work at all if we don't accept that first premise. If Kulongoski isn't as cautious as you think he is, or he's willing to overlook felonious behavior for political expediency, then your argument falls apart. It's similar to someone who works in the White House who says that GW Bush is a stand-up, straightforward, highly ethical person who could never lie to the American people. Therefore, he never could have have manipulated the intelligence on Iraq, and the fact that he is an ethical person is proof that he didn't. Would you buy that argument, or ask for further investigation?

  • SSV (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay LT, Miles, and Kari.

    I have waded through most of the 318 pages. It is good reading. Everything that I have read there, from Fred, to Kantor, and Imeson, from Margie to Debbie and even Ginny. Every single one of them talks about Fred. The biggest criticism is that he is (or can get) "emotional".

    Obviously, this rumor (and now fact -Niel-) hit him squarely between the eyes. But nobody has challenged him as somebody who is telling lies. Fred even said that if TeddyK is right (and Fred is wrong, there was no conversation, behind the couch, for 20mins, at a party with Margie, and his wife Christy watching from across the room) then why hasn't TeddyK sued him for libel, or at the bare minimum, demanded that Fred stop telling his lies, and demanded a retraction?

    TeddyK's behavior speaks volumes on this topic. As do the many, many other people who spoke to the investigators about Bernie's and TeddyK's role in this matter.

    <h2>Looking forward to your post on this topic.</h2>

connect with blueoregon