Was it okay for Sam Adams to lie?
The Willamette Week is now reporting that Portland Mayor Sam Adams lied after all. He did have sex with Beau Breedlove back in 2005, the summer when Breedlove turned 18-years-old.
Earlier, Adams had denied any sexual relationship with Breedlove, and the story transformed from one focused on Adams' judgment and possible criminal wrongdoing into one focused on the motives of Adams' accuser, Portland developer Bob Ball, and the tragedy of smear-filled politics.
It turns out Ball was right. Not only did Adams lie, but he convinced Breedlove to lie as well. And he kept on lying right up until today, the start of a week when WW was going to release an update on the subject parading forth a ton of evidence showing the truth.
This is a black eye on Sam Adams. His defense? Twofold. First, Adams says he didn't have sex with Breedlove until after Breedlove turned 18 and so didn't commit any crimes. Guess we'll have to trust him on that one.
More importantly, however, Adams seems to have believed all along that the Breedlove issue was just a smear and distraction from the "real issues" as he saw them. In Adams' view, whether or not he had sex with Breedlove after Breedlove turned 18 was a purely private matter that had nothing to do with Adams' qualifications for mayor. Nonetheless, Adams feared that, if he had admitted to the relationship from the start, his campaign would thereafter have been tarred and consumed by a sex scandal that would have drowned his themes of sustainability, jobs, and the arts.
He has some good arguments. But with the city as his jury, it will be up to Portland to decide whether Adams was right to fear a distracting scandal and whether he was justified in lying to avoid it.
|
January 19, 2009 |
Cody Hoesly | Comments (178 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: DanOregon | Jan 19, 2009 11:08:47 PM
I've always assumed the people in the know were a pretty decent judge of people so I figured Adams might be the best mayor Portland has seen in a while.
But since his virtual election last June I haven't seen much that impresses me. Taxing garbage bags, tolls on bridges and now this. He seems to be somewhat tone deaf in what might fly in Portland. It's like he wants to tax first and figure out what to do with the money later.
I don't think this latest deal has much to do with Adams being gay, but does call to mind the Neil Goldschmidt stuff and doesn't get his administration off on the right foot.
Anyone know who he gets political advice from?
Posted by: Douglas K | Jan 19, 2009 11:14:39 PM
Was Adams right to fear a distracting scandal?
Yes.
Was he justified in lying to avoid it?
No.
As much as it hurt, he should have come clean. If Breedlove really was 18 at the time, there's no crime. Better to deal with a distracting scandal and get rid of it than to be exposed as a liar. At this point, Adams' credibility is completely shot, and it will be very difficult to get much of anything accomplished as mayor for quite some time.
Posted by: Am Sadams | Jan 19, 2009 11:35:58 PM
I am outraged!! When we should be celebrating, we now have to deal with this garbage. Time to resign Sam.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Jan 19, 2009 11:36:45 PM
The problem is that it's not for him to decide which truths are relevant in a campaign--or at least,"because it would have made my camapign harder to tell the truth" is not a good excuse at all. Adams at least admits that.
And legal or no, you'd wonder about a het male as old as Adams, taking up with an 18 yr old girl. I think a lot of people would find it a little creepy. It happens, but equal power relationships are rare in those situations, and the alternative is one where Adams is benefitting from that imbalance to, well, score. It's like the senior trolling the freshman dorms the first week of school.
I accept that Clinton put Monica in an unfair position (no pun intended); while the scale is definitely smaller here and he wasn't Mayor, why is this so different?
The sad part is the reinforcement for small minded, hateful ignorants who point to this as validation of the gay male predator stereotype. He has done such a fantastic job being the gay politician for which orientation politics was never a focus---now this just goes over the "gay" part of "gay politician" in black marker a few dozen times, in his public perception.
Sigh--another man felled by shopping for the pooty.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 19, 2009 11:47:24 PM
DanOregon:
Taxing garbage bags, tolls on bridges and now this.
Bob T:
He's also in love with the idea of using taxpayer dollars to provide corporate welfare to renovate Civic Stadium (again) and to build a new park for the baseball team, as well as to build a government-owned convention hotel.
Bob Tiernan of Mult Co
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 19, 2009 11:52:46 PM
DanOregon:
Taxing garbage bags, tolls on bridges and now this.
Bob T:
He's also too in love with the idea of using taxpayer dollars to dish out corporate welfare to a millionaire (son of another millionaire) so he can renovate Civic Stadium (again) as well as build a new park for the baseball team, and to use tax dollars to build a government-owned convention hotel.
Bob Tiernan of Mult Co.
Posted by: Jay | Jan 20, 2009 12:07:01 AM
Cody, it won't be just Portland who judges Sam -- he will BE Portland to the rest of the country.
On national news tomorrow morning, this will be the flipside of America's fist black president...
How we rose above color.
America's first big-city mayor who's openly gay now admits...
How we held our nose.
Posted by: JeffB. | Jan 20, 2009 12:25:10 AM
Regardless of sexual orientation, is it ever appropriate for a much older person in a position of power and impression to be involved with someone who's just come of age? This reminds me of the WA's recent approval of teacher's having sex with 18 year olds. Are there no longer standards of what's considered appropriate for someone in a position of authority?
Hopefully Portland has the sense to recall a politician who did not have the sense to take this in to account given his aspirations and position.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 20, 2009 12:28:15 AM
What's perhaps more worrisome is the fact that Portland elected this guy despite his personal bankruptcy. In the face of such a huge financial mess, with so many over-extending themselves so foolishly, the last thing we need is someone who has demonstrated lack of personal financial acumen and restraint to lead us.
Posted by: recallsam | Jan 20, 2009 12:47:50 AM
We need to step up and start a movement to recall the mayor for this blatant violation of the public's trust.
Email me at recall@recallsamadams.com if you support a recall and if you're willing to help.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 20, 2009 12:52:28 AM
While lying is never right, I'm past the point where I'm concerned about politicians who lie about their sex lives. I really just don't care. Maybe I should, but I don't, unless it's something really amusing, like if they were wearing diapers or tapping their feet in a public restroom or something.
Posted by: ws | Jan 20, 2009 12:55:41 AM
This is disappointing to say the least. Adams was dishonest. In carrying out his charade of virtuous moral integrity, only to have it completely repudiated with this ending, I'll bet a lot of voters will feel they've been duped regarding the quality of his character. Bob Ball seemed a little clueless about the way he chose to originally reveal the story, but now doesn't seem to be quite the rat he was made out to be. I wonder if Adams will recover enough of his sense of honor and obligation to offer Ball a public apology.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 20, 2009 1:03:07 AM
I'm not understanding the connection to tax policy or a bankruptcy in his 20s. It seems that if one's outrage at this were genuine, it wouldn't be about plastic shopping bags costing extra. Replying to this story with unrelated complaints about Sam makes it seem like this story upsets you because you already don't like him.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 20, 2009 1:52:09 AM
The guy is a smug idiot who will say and do whatever it takes to win, this being just one of many examples.
Look at earlier WW interviews with him, where he says he will never make his orientation a campaign issue, but then, when told of complaints about his overbearing personality, he says something along the lines of, well, maybe they have problems with gays.
This guy plays by his own rules, and while that sort of attitude may have been just fine 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago, I think we now need and demand greater accountability and transparency. This thug ain't delivering on that count at all.
Fortunately, this incident will do-in any chance of Adams extending his political career. Or maybe not. (I'm shocked that Tim Geithner is probably going to be appointed, despite blatantly failing to pay taxes, even after being warned, for years and years...)
Posted by: jaznpdx | Jan 20, 2009 2:16:42 AM
please. he lied to the media. what politician hasn't? Sam was the best prospective mayor in 20 years. let's judge him on how he performs as mayor.
Posted by: Joanne Rigutto | Jan 20, 2009 3:21:42 AM
The thing that concerns me about a politician when he or she gets exposed in covering up something is how they treated the public - lying to them - and how they treated the person who came out with the info in the first place. SOP is to discredit the person, the media reporting, if any, etc.. That tells me that the politician is willing to sacrifice an innocent to gain their ends.
I've been on the receiving end of that type of behavior. I won't tolerate it in a private citizen and I definately don't tolerate it on the part of a public official.
The question you have to ask yourself is this - "So he threw one person under the bus, are you willing to be the next sacrificial lamb?"
Posted by: James X. | Jan 20, 2009 4:57:05 AM
While I again maintain that lying is wrong, and that it was bad judgment, I just don't expect politicians to tell me about their sex lives, so if they deny having sex with someone they had sex with, I don't feel particularly wronged, or robbed of information I had an expectation to have. As for Ball pushing a rumor of underage sex that he later said he didn't believe, and one that nobody ever seemed to actually come out and allege (Ball only said he had heard the rumor, not that it was true or that he had any knowledge about it), that also seemed like bad judgment.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 20, 2009 5:31:29 AM
BREAKING NEWS: Before I was married, I had sex with some people!
Seriously, folks. Adams and Breedlove were both single and consenting adults. Once the media had established that, they should have dropped the story. It is entirely inappropriate to be discussing the sex lives of our political leaders - as long as we're talking about single consenting adults.
Adams probably should have said that in the first place - but the fact that he didn't tells you that he didn't trust the local media to drop the story once they determined that everyone involved was single and consenting.
Full disclosure: My firm built Sam Adams' campaign website. I was not privy to any of the non-public details of this story. I speak only for myself.
Posted by: J Ramsay | Jan 20, 2009 6:29:28 AM
I was waiting for it and thank goodness Kari stepped up to the plate. Sorry Kari. Take off your rose colored glasses of love for everyone who has paid for the food on your plate.
There is only one way to look at this. Sam took the responsibility of helping an underage kid find his future and didn't let it stop there. Sam's been a supervisor for a long time and should have known right from wrong. If he had hidden this about a fellow employee, he'd have been fired and subject to a lawsuit. He owes the Portland one more thing with his admission: His resignation. How can we ever trust him again?
Posted by: DanOregon | Jan 20, 2009 6:41:07 AM
Kari, Adams was serving as they guy's mentor. Adams has since hired two reporters who were investigating the story for jobs in his administration.
I'm actually kind of surprised by the reaction from those I consider to the left of me being more upset and angry at Adams than I am. Folks on KPOJ are calling for his head.
Posted by: Samuel John Klein | Jan 20, 2009 6:53:09 AM
No, it's not okay that he lied.
Not because he had sex (with a young fellow when he was in a position of personal power, which is an ethical dilemma on its own). Everyone has sex. Almost everyone has sex before they're married.
And we all, at one time or another tell the "little white lie".
The breach of trust occurred because, in looking back, Sam seemed aware that he would be able to play the victim and know that those of us who liked him would agree that he was being victimized, and would rally. Which we did. And Sam played the victim with gusto. I wonder how Bob Ball is feeling right now.
Now I feel foolish for ever having supported him. I believed his victim story without a second thought.
Trust is a fragile thing. In politics, it falls apart at a touch. Sam's turpitude has made it that much harder to reinforce my own rather (obviously) naive belief that sometimes a man or woman aspires to high City office because they really think they can elevate the City, and it's completely ruined my conception of the man.
Not because he had sex, and not because he exploited a certain relationship, but because he got caught, looked at us voters that supported him, and cynically delivered a story that saved his political pelt, instead of doing the right thing.
It doesn't have anything to do with if he's getting any. He lied, knew he was lying, and knew a lot of us would defend him. That's the sort of cynicism that has caused apathy and made people check out of the political process. And now I can't say that I blame them.
Posted by: Mrs. Todd | Jan 20, 2009 6:57:50 AM
If it was legal and consensual that is one thing, but how can we trust Adams when he says he waited until the intern was 18 before sodomozing him?
Posted by: Douglas K | Jan 20, 2009 7:02:34 AM
he didn't trust the local media to drop the story once they determined that everyone involved was single and consenting.
That's a piss-poor excuse for lying to the people. All he needed to say was: "He was 18, not 17. We had a brief May-December thing for a while, and it's over. There's no story here." Most likely there would have been a brief public flap, and it would have gone away.
This speaks to both dishonesty and bad judgment. That's going to be far more damaging to him than "fling with an 18 year old" ever would have been.
he lied to the media. what politician hasn't?
Probably the majority of them. And "he lied to the media" = "he lied to the voters." We don't demand better conduct than that from our public officials, we'll never get it.
Posted by: Jim | Jan 20, 2009 7:09:15 AM
If in fact the sex was legal, then I have no problem with him lying to the media about it. His sex life is none of my, yours, or the media's business. To say he broke our trust because he used the story kind of puts the cart before the horse. If the accusation had not been made--an accusation about his private life--then there is no breaking of trust along the lines of using the event to his advantage.
There are other problems I have with Adams. This is not one of them. My problem is with people who invade others' privacy and people who get pissy when a victim of that invasion takes steps to combat that invasion.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jan 20, 2009 8:02:59 AM
Blah-blah-blah, worse than Watergate, blah-blah-blah, impeachment, blah-blah-blah Republicans can do it to the Constitution all they want but Democrats who do it with each other are unfit to serve blah-blah-blah.
The problem isn't Sam Adams. The problem is neopuritans continuing to try to criminalize sex. Understandable in Republicans, but I'm ashamed to see so much of it in my own party.
Posted by: Stacy6 | Jan 20, 2009 8:08:13 AM
I have no respect for politicians who lie to their constituents. I care far less about Adams having sex with a younger man than I do about Adams' lies - although if he lied about the relationship, it makes me think that he's lying about the legality of it as well. If he got away with lying about this, what else will he lie about? It makes me feel like he's contemptuous of us. It seems like he's basically a dishonest person, not worthy of our trust. Not someone I want in a leadership position.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 20, 2009 8:08:31 AM
Wheter or not his lying is wrong, the issue is this: It is part of his culture. It is who he is. He doesn't know any better because of that culture. And since we have to be accepting of any culture (i.e. 'diversity') there is nothing we can do about it.
Since there is nothing we can do about it, and it is part of his culture (diversity), It's not really lying at all. It's just the way it is in our society. We, unfortunately, have to live with it
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 20, 2009 8:15:44 AM
There are a number of reasons it was dead wrong to lie. Many have been menioned already. Add this one, the most compelling to me: it demonstrates a lack of respect for the electorate. Sam was right to be concerned that it would go over badly; any 42-year-old with mayoral ambitions who had a relationship with an 18-year-old would rightly be criticized for exercising poor judgment. Does it matter that Sam's gay? We'll never know, because Sam didn't trust us with the information.
Kari's wrong upthread, because the issue isn't the relationship--it's the lie. Had Sam said "it's none of your damn business," I would be behind him 100%. He did nothinng wrong. Instead, he decided that we couldn't be trusted with the info.
He shouldn't resign. He should apologize and explain why he didn't trust the good people of Portland--and perhaps offer some assurances that this won't become a habit.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Jan 20, 2009 8:19:49 AM
No. Sam Adams is a test of liberals' ability to keep their eye on the ball. Anyone keeping score with him- since whenever- cannot be impressed. He suffers from an "IT" mentality. Be very progressive when discussing theory, middle of the road during implementation, and completely unaccountable for the final result/cost/completion date/user satisfaction. In other words, only concentrate on the fun parts of a project.
All politics really is local. I would be delighted with Sam- record included- in every other city I've lived. Portland can and needs to do better.
Speaking of IT, the new functionality that keeps you on-site during comment preview is great!
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 20, 2009 8:22:01 AM
"and perhaps offer some assurances that this won't become a habit."
In light of his culture, I doubt any such assurances would be worthwhile.
Posted by: Clay Fouts | Jan 20, 2009 8:22:54 AM
I would like to thank Sam and Beau for doing what was necessary to keep their private affairs from turning a legitimate, issues-based mayoral race into some farce preoccupied with prurient speculation.
Posted by: JohnK | Jan 20, 2009 8:43:14 AM
Sam has to go. He put the careers and reputations of his supporters at risk in an effort to avoid facing the consequences of his horrible judgement making abilities. Unfortunately, he has shown he does not have the character or judgement to remain as Mayor of Portland.
Posted by: Jim | Jan 20, 2009 8:49:15 AM
The problem with saying "It's none of your damn business" is that people take that as a "yes" and then as Adm. Naismith noted, neopuritanism takes over. Ask Bill Bradley about that one regarding religion.
As to it being poor judgement, it's only poor judgement because we accept it as some sort of holy truth that we have a right to know about people's private lives. If you are willing to even deal with such questions, you deserve all the lies and disappointment you get.
Posted by: fester | Jan 20, 2009 9:32:47 AM
So there was no Smear Campaign after all. Will BO retract there story stating Bob Ball was running a smear campaign:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/09/sam-adams-targe.html
Don't count on it!
Will Sam re-write his "Open Letter to Portland":
http://www.commissionersam.com/node/2801
If there was any Smear Campaign, it was certainly on Sam Adams front. Lying and attempted cover-up, and bashing people who were telling the truth.
Typical progressive politics.
Posted by: Dave Lister | Jan 20, 2009 9:36:06 AM
One thing I know from raising two sons is that eighteen year olds, despite their "adult" legal status, are still really children.
A middle age man using his status as a mentor and role model to get an eighteen year old into his bed is sleazy and shows a lack of character.
If this story had broken during the primary Sam would not have walked into the mayor's office.
The fact that Amy Ruiz, a reporter who was covering that story at the time, has been selected for a high paying city job for which she has no educational or employment background is very suspicious.
I can tell you one thing for sure. If a story had come out that I was sleeping with an eighteen year old when I was running for city council I would have been destroyed in the media.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Jan 20, 2009 9:49:11 AM
Have we all become so corrupted that we have to ask if it is OK for our Mayor to lie? He took advantage of an intern, one too young and lacking life experience to know best. He violated City rules and regulations. These rules are in place to protect youngsters and subordinates from those in power that would take advantage. He lied and induced others to lie for him. He may have provided favors to those who lied.
This is not about being gay or straight. In fact, Adams is the one who played this card during the initial inquiry, in an attempt to gain support from the gay community. He threw them under the bus, and the gay community above all other community members, should be most incensed.
If nothing else think about the example it sets for the entire work force of the City. If he is not held accountable, then where will the city be when faced with city employee misconduct on every level. How can it be OK for the CEO to do, and not for everyone else.
Adams is done. He has to be, or the city has no chance for success. If he does not realize it then we picked the wrong guy. It makes no one happy, it just has to be.
Posted by: andy | Jan 20, 2009 9:58:07 AM
Hmm, abuse of his position, lying, stonewalling, rewarding those in the know, etc. Sounds like little Sammy sat at Bill Clinton's feet and learned how to be a piece of scum.
Posted by: Ben | Jan 20, 2009 10:01:01 AM
No.
But he has asked our forgiveness. And we should give it to him and allow him the chance to deliver on his bright promise.
Posted by: Ben | Jan 20, 2009 10:03:03 AM
And, on a side note, what's with all the questions about Amy?
It's simply absurd that people would try to drag her into the gutter.
Posted by: SteveO | Jan 20, 2009 10:05:20 AM
Adams knew this was pretty shaky behavior. That's why he had to lie about it. Not quite on a par with Neil the pedophile but doesn't speak highly for Sam's character either. Resign or not, he's all done.
Posted by: Stacy6 | Jan 20, 2009 10:06:20 AM
Fester, before you start whinging about "Typical progressive politics," you might want to consider how many progressives are expressing anger and disappointment right here on this site. Keep your stereotypes to yourself.
Posted by: eav | Jan 20, 2009 10:06:30 AM
The answer to your question is NO - the first commenter made it as clear and simple as possible, and the debate should have been over.
If Sam Adams would have told the truth from the very beginning, then Portlanders could have elected a Mayor to an important public office, based on his TRUE character.
Posted by: Dan | Jan 20, 2009 10:09:24 AM
What Sam did was sleazy. But just like with Bill Clinton, Sam Adam's personal life does not affect his ability to govern. Sam deserves to get hell from his partner, friends and family, but the public has no business with Sam's personal life. Let's not let a politician's personal life distract us from serious policy like it did in the Clinton administration.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 20, 2009 10:14:11 AM
"Sam Adam's personal life does not affect his ability to govern"
Even if his culture says otherwise?
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Jan 20, 2009 10:16:02 AM
What a pathetic counterpoint to the dignity of this morning's historic events.
Posted by: K | Jan 20, 2009 10:18:54 AM
Who did he lie to? Don't kids lie to their parents sometimes, no matter how old they are? He lied to keep things "clean" and I'm not sure how much it should matter. Should he have lied? NO. But, should he resign over this? I don't think so.
Posted by: mjtienken | Jan 20, 2009 10:26:54 AM
1) Sam Adams lied in order to defeat any possible contenders and get elected to a "prestigious" position … liar, liar, pants on fire … no accountability … just “oh by the way … I lied … sorry” … Typical of someone who has never held a position that required accountability or character, etc. No reason to act with integrity now … !
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: mp97303 | Jan 19, 2009 10:56:52 PM
NO