When Should a Political Leader Resign?
My conversations about recent events in Portland have left me a bit confused. On the one hand, I've found myself playing the age card (or maybe cynicism card) with a number of young people whom I know and who are devastated with recent events. I'm trying to talk them down a bit from the ledge--politics is like this. You won't always be disappointed, but you will be disappointed at some times and in some leaders. And then you move on.
While I find events very regrettable, I suppose I have been around long enough to not find them particularly shocking. As Kari put it, people have sex, and people lie about it, particularly political leaders in our particularly Puritan country. But I also agree with Kari that mistakes were made here beyond just having sex. What I find especially troubling is that the context in which deception occurred; it's hard not to separate the deceptions from self-interested political ambition.
All that being said, I'm frankly shocked at how quickly there have been calls for resignation. I don't think Sam Adams should resign.
Oddly enough, I did feel that Bill Clinton should have resigned, because he had sex with a direct subordinate who worked in his office--an offense for which most of us would be fired. And it appears that he either did, or came perilously close to, lying to a grand jury. In Adams's case, he did not have direct supervisory responsibilities and he broke no laws.
Maybe it is impossible to get beyond the specifics of the current events, but when do you think a political leader should resign? Extra marital sex? Lying about extra marital sex? Lying about anything? Where is your line?
|
January 22, 2009 |
Paul Gronke | Comments (79 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 22, 2009 8:58:05 AM
Lying and abuse of power in order to win an election. Wasn't that what got Nixon into trouble?
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 8:59:50 AM
Ahh, Eric, I can see Christian forgiveness dripping from your post, like blood from a stake.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 9:04:40 AM
Forgive the sinner, but not the sin. That's what it is all about, Bob.
Sam can, and eventually will be forgiven, but he still has to account, and eventually pay, for his transgressions - either now with a resignation or later when he is his life is fully accounted for.
Posted by: Anne | Jan 22, 2009 9:12:35 AM
This is not a hard question.
Political leaders should resign when their character and their judgment are revealed to be so lacking that they can't possibly lead anymore. When they are a predator instead of a mentor to a kid looking for his ideals. When they lie, repeatedly, to the people that they have sworn to serve.
In other words, Sam Adams should resign right now.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Jan 22, 2009 9:13:01 AM
"But I also agree with Kari that mistakes were made here beyond just having sex."
And the passive voice --- the language of non-responsibility --- was used. When did a public official's decision to lie and then wage an all-out campaign to discredit a rumor later proven true -- and the accuser -- become just "mistakes?" And who made them?
Posted by: Jefffrane | Jan 22, 2009 9:16:01 AM
What I find most reprehensible in this whole circus is Adams' willingness to slander another gay man out of a purely to further his own personal gain -- and he has yet to apologize.
Basically, though, his credibility is shot. He has an ambitious agenda for the City and now has had to admit publicly to multiple lies.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Jan 22, 2009 9:19:42 AM
I have consistently felt that personal legal sex stuff is not a reason to resign. Just take it forward. Do we want our officials so paranoid about expressing their sexuality that they're distracted from their official duties?
Do we want an army of undercover Linda Tripps running the show?
I admit part of my initial anger at all this was that I waited 8 years for the Bush administration to be over, and to have it affected at all by anything else was extremely irritating. I'm past that disappointment now.
The part of this that still reeks is the Mercury reporter who admitted she wasn't qualified. The article says she was hired by Sam for her smarts, yet she says she never thought there could be any connection between her hiring and her investigation of this case. That doesn't sound too smart right there.
My question is when WW interviewed Sam, 8 days ago now, she was present according to the article. That would indicate her job was tied into this. The sustainability aspect appears to be to sustain a BS cover story.
I don't like the idea of paying someone 55 grand who isn't qualified because you need them to stop pursuing a story or to help you manage the spin. I'm not saying I know that definitively happened, but you tell me it doesn't look like it. Sam is an expert at taking every political advantage, even implying Bob Ball was vulnerable on the subject of underage sex, which seems quick malicious.
I don't want somebody this mean and this dumb running the city. We've got better things to do. The Bush administration is over. I need to have a break in my life from waiting for some politician's time in office to end. I want to return to the government being a backdrop while we live our lives. I don't want to spend months and months wading through this.
So summing up: Don't resign because of the guy - resign because of the female reporter whom you mysteriously hired when she had the dirt on you. You know: The one with all the smarts who couldn't even figure out you were lying about this.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 9:20:00 AM
Eric bathes himself in the gleeful delight that not he, but some unseen God, will burn people for all eternity. That makes it OK.
With forgiveness like this, who needs nukes?
Posted by: Tim Bovee | Jan 22, 2009 9:20:32 AM
There's no way that Sam should resign. I hope he has the courage to stay in office despite the outcry from all the nosey parkers (like the O. and the Trib) who have such a morbid interest in whatever happens in other people's bedrooms.
As for the lie, there's no shame in lying in reply to an unreasonable accusation from a political enemy. The original claim, during the campaign, was a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment. Pure propaganda. It didn't even deserve the dignity of a denial.
Sam should stay the course, for the sake of the city. In these hard economic times, the city needs his energy, imagination and detailed knowledge of how the system works. The guy is good at his job, and it would hurt Portland if he were forced out.
His detractors, if they're so minded, should mount a recall effort in six months, as the law allows. Let the voters decide. My guess, they'll decide to keep Sam working to make the city better.
Posted by: janek51 | Jan 22, 2009 9:22:41 AM
Oh, Eric. "Godless wonders like Sam Adams"? It's time to lay off Ann Coulter. Not that I'm accusing you of laying on Ann Coulter. Ugh!
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Jan 22, 2009 9:24:08 AM
I have to correct myself, I have previously said that Sam Adams should not resign and that the voters of Portland, OR should decide that in 2012.
RESIGN NOW SAM AND SAVE YOUR LAST SHRED OF DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY!
If you stay on, then every single skeleton in your entire closet will be aired and it will not just be the Portland media who does it.
How could the national media resist this debacle? It has all the ingredients:
1. A handsome young, now fallen politician
2. Sex
3. Cronyism (Amy Ruiz)
4. Lies
RESIGN NOW!
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Jan 22, 2009 9:30:00 AM
I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of whether or not Sam should resign, but I disagree with the premise that Clinton's behavior was worse. Supposedly, Breedlove originally approached Sam as a teenager who was unsure of his future and was seeking advice from a successful adult who had been in the same situation. He was going through a difficult time, and Sam had the right experience to be a mentor. To go from being a mentor to having sex with a young man who had made himself vulnerable to Sam seems completely unethical and rather predatory. That seems worse than sleeping with a work subordinate.
I also don't buy the argument that's being repeated around here that it's completely acceptable since it was legal. Plenty of things are legal under the letter of the law that are unethical. Lobbyists giving extravagant gifts to legislators was legal before 2007, but it was still unethical. Ditto for housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don't think it's too much to ask of our leaders that they behave in an ethical matter as well as a legal one. I realize nobody's perfect, and there are certainly times for forgiveness. But if we are to trust our leaders with the power and influence we give them, it's fair to expect that their behavior is better than average. Doing the very minimum to obey the letter of the law is not good enough, and it also sets a terrible example. Do you think Big Brothers Big Sisters would be happy if it's mentors were waiting until their students were 18 and then slept with them?
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jan 22, 2009 9:32:07 AM
Everyone's "lines" are different I know. Here's mine of this situation, a situation that is filled with shades of gray. Let's play hypotheticals for just a minute, beginning with the basics---Sam is accused by Bob Ball of having a sexual relationship with an underage person and the press asks Sam about it. Realizing we'll never know the actual truth (unless someone has a time/date-stamped video of intimate acts somewhere), let's give Sam the benefit of the doubt on the underage piece of the story, just for the hypotheticals that follow: Possible reactions of Sam to the press questions and my reaction to them:
**Sam says "my personal life is not your business". (My reaction---right on, move on)
**Sam tells the truth--"I had a brief sexual relationship with a legal adult". (My reaction---bfd, move on).
**Sam lies--"I've never slept with that young man, when he was an adult and certainly not when he was underage" and he stops with that statement. Later, he admits he slept with the man (My reaction--again, bfd, his sex life, not my business, move on).
**Sam lies, convinces his lover to lie, holds a press conference at which he acts the part of the aggrieved party under attack by people trying to smear his entire reputation while he---HE---is actually the knight in shining armor, offering guidance and wisdom to a young man who was much like himself years ago. He's shocked that anyone would try and inpugn his integrity by suggesting an inappropriate relationship, nay a relationship of any kind beyond that of mentor/student. He attacks his opponent who brought the issue up and rallies his supporters to help destroy that man's chances at office. He continues to lie about everything until it is obvious that someone has dug up the truth about the situation and it's going to come out one way or another. Then and only then, does he admit the truth. And EVEN THEN, he LIES AGAIN. First we hear "yes, I had a relationship which developed out of the mentoring position I was in" THEN we hear "actually, there was no mentoring going on, it was just a sexual relationship". THIS is the difference in the situations-----he didn't JUST lie.....he lied, played the martyr, coerced others to lie, manipulated his supporters into attacking his opponent, continued to lie when asked and then we he came clean, HE LIED AGAIN about how the situation came about.
Seriously, keep him as mayor if you want. But for me, I wouldn't trust Sam Adams if he told me it was raining in Portland or the sky was gray.
He has blown his credibility entirely and acted not in the interest of the people of Portland, but only ever in his own self interest.....and that is where I draw the line.
Posted by: Ian | Jan 22, 2009 9:43:20 AM
Steve Duin's column from The Oregonian is pretty good: Don't give up, Sam, without a fight
Lying is wrong of course, but I have to say I don't blame him.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 22, 2009 9:49:55 AM
This is a test of Sam's leadership, and one he may fail. Nearly every major news organization is now expressing (confused, misplaced) outrage and calling for his head. If he is to remain mayor, he needs to figure out a way to get through this phase and recognize that he's handed a loaded pistol to his enemies who will forever mutter epithets about his qualifications.
But the facts are these (so far as we know them): Sam exercised poor judgment by getting romantically involved with a young man and lied about it. Where matters of sex are concerned, we need to have a lowered, not heightened, sense of expectations. Of all the skeletons rattling around in all our closets, a great majority involve sex. Maybe this is why we're less tolerant, because we feel the burn of shame when we see it in someone else. But really--I find it embarrassing and parochial that everyone's so freaked out.
The lie--yeah, that's a problem, and one Sam's going to have to live with. He lied to, and in the process, disrespected Portland residents. This is worthy of scorn, but hardly worth resigning over.
Further facts: the reason Sam sailed to an easy primary win was because he's spent 20 years preparing to be mayor. Portlanders trust his experience, which is unaffected by the situation. In fact, he may actually be a better leader because he'll now have close scrutiny and a commitment to accountability as he tries to redeem himself as a public servant, if not a role model.
We just passed through a period where we had an admirable human being as a mayor. Admirable human beings aren't always great mayors, though. Sam has the chance to be a great mayor, and his resignation will force us to buy a pig in a poke--a slate of candidates we'll have just 3 months to consider, none of who will likely be as prepared or as experienced as Sam.
As policy wonks, we always try to think of the best solutions to fix problems. Resignation is the wrong solution.
Posted by: Ron Morgan | Jan 22, 2009 9:53:34 AM
"The original claim, during the campaign, was a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment. Pure propaganda. It didn't even deserve the dignity of a denial.
The problem is that the original claim, appropriate or not, was true, Adams had been "beating his wife". And Adams wrapped himself, and a number of supporters, in righteous indignation at having to deny it and triggered a reciprical character assassination campaign against the claimant. Again, the problem is that the claim was true.
We can argue the question of whether Adams should resign from the lofty perch of "pure" ethics til the cows come home, the bottom line is not an abstract, but whether Adams can still count the votes to move his agenda. If he can, then he should stay, if the well is truly poisoned then he's just marking time until he's recalled. If he broke the law, though, all bets are off and he should step down...
Posted by: David | Jan 22, 2009 9:53:41 AM
Let the man govern...if he doesn't do a good job....fire him....but is any doubting he isn't the right man for Portland. We don't need to waste time finding someone else. it was stupid to lie but I believe most of the people saying he should resign would of done the same thing. Mistakes happen when you want power but lying about sex is probably the weakest of all the bad one might do.
Posted by: Sadie | Jan 22, 2009 9:54:27 AM
I draw the line at lying to serve one's own ambition. Just because "everyone lies" doesn't make it right. Perhaps I hold my political leaders to a higher standard, but why not? We entrust our leaders with considerable power and they should be held to a higher standard. I for one want my political leaders to reflect the best of what we can be.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 9:56:13 AM
"We just passed through a period where we had an admirable human being as a mayor. Admirable human beings aren't always great mayors, though. Sam has the chance to be a great mayor, and his resignation will force us to buy a pig in a poke--a slate of candidates we'll have just 3 months to consider, none of who will likely be as prepared or as experienced as Sam"
Too bad. Sam should have thought of that before he let his "little head" think for the big, main head. But, I guess, thinking isn't one of Sam's strong siuts in his culture.
Posted by: faolan | Jan 22, 2009 10:05:05 AM
My line is when the lying is about an issue directly related to the job they do for us.
Sex is no one's business but those involved. As far as I'm concerned people who are asked about their sex lives can lie, in fact I encourage them to lie because even though I may not give a crap other people will and they will not be judged fairly no matter what they say.
Seriously people, we are totally screwed in the head about sex in this country. We need to grow up.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 10:06:23 AM
"But, I guess, thinking isn't one of Sam's strong siuts in his culture."
"In his culture?" What kind of stereotyping is that?
Sam's lying matters, and is worthy of criticism, but I see again and again on this blog and others that homophobia is at the root of much of the criticism.
I wonder how people would react if Obama was caught in a scandalous lie, and when people with legitimate grievances showed up to protest, the KKK and a whole cast of malcontent bigots showed up too. That's the sort of thing that's going on in Portland right now.
Posted by: sean cruz | Jan 22, 2009 10:11:50 AM
As President Barack Obama answers America’s call for bold, visionary leadership, Portland’s civic leaders and elected officials are off to a false start over the Mayor’s sexual relationship with a teenager.
As reported in yesterday’s Oregonian, Sandra McDonough of the Portland Business Alliance and Leslie Carlson of the Sustainable Development Commission are ready to move on with business as usual, and none of Portland’s City Council members are willing to step up and lead the city in this time of crisis.
Apology made. Good! Apology accepted. Not so fast….
None of Portland’s other elected officials have spoken out publicly on the issue either, all waiting to see where the political winds will blow, whether Mayor Adams will be indicted down the line.
They work hard to get elected, and they love their jobs. They want to keep those jobs, hence the absence of clear statements over a situation that has an overwhelming abundance of clarity, moral and otherwise.
The million dollars of public money spent on electing Amanda Fritz to the City Council didn’t buy fifty cents’ worth of actual leadership, apparently, but merely wonkism and process and minutia. I am underwhelmed.
The City’s business is already disrupted by the disgrace, from yesterday’s cancelled council meeting to the negative publicity reaching a worldwide audience.
I have just seen the Mayor’s interview before the Oregonian Editorial Board, here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/01/sam_adams_on_the_record.html
This video and others will find a permanent place on YouTube, reaching a universal audience, and there is no way to undo the damage.
A criminal investigation into this mess has its place, but the City and its citizens need to move forward TODAY. That will require a new mayor.
Portland’s City Council surely understands that fact. What is missing is the courage to step up, to speak out, even against a colleague, and lead!
Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 22, 2009 10:12:08 AM
Eric Parker: Maybe they do, but that does not entitle them to do it with furvor.
Furvor? Wow, that adds a whole new dimension I just do not want to think about.
Anne: When they are a predator instead of a mentor to a kid looking for his ideals.
Actually, I think the current version of Adams's story (at least as of yesterday) is that the whole "mentor" thing was part of the cover-up to explain the reason behind his relationship with Breedlove.
Tim Bovee: It didn't even deserve the dignity of a denial.
Indeed, it didn't, but that's not the path Adams chose, is it?
Jeff Alworth: This is a test of Sam's leadership, and one he may fail.
He's already failed it.
Posted by: Terry | Jan 22, 2009 10:18:35 AM
Sex is not the issue to focus on. While I am personally troubled by Sam's lack of discretion regarding the age difference, it is not a crime, assuming he was 18. Regardless of 17 and 10 months or 18 and 1 month, the decision was unethical and inappropriate, at best, whether a public official or not.
I repeat again though that the issue is not sex. The issue is the behavior after the wrong doing. The extent of the lies and intentional cover up of a poor decision is the real issue. How can any citizen in Portland, or other official working with or for Sam Adams ever trust that he will be accountable for his mistakes in the future. If he is worried about the perception of the public for a particular mistake, at what lengths will he cover up those mistakes?
The real issue is that Sam's credibility is torn beyond repair because of how he handled himself, not because of what he did in the first place. I believe that most of the public could forgive, or at least look past a stupid mistake, as long as a public official took responsibility and admitted it with dignity.
Sam should resign immediately.
Posted by: Ditto | Jan 22, 2009 10:21:13 AM
Ditto Ms. Mel Harmon. Perfect explanation of the difference between those four reactions.
It's NOT about the sex. It's clearly about the lying, the coercing Beau to lie, the righteous indignation in the face of the charge, and the complete and total loss of credibility now. Not to mention the Amy Ruiz thing, which would be even worse. This episode demonstrates Sam Adams' complete lack of scruples or boundaries in advancing his own career and agenda.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jan 22, 2009 10:22:09 AM
Sadie wrote: "Perhaps I hold my political leaders to a higher standard, but why not? We entrust our leaders with considerable power and they should be held to a higher standard. I for one want my political leaders to reflect the best of what we can be."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - John 8:7
If we expect our leaders to be saints, we'll get neither.
Posted by: Michael Burdick | Jan 22, 2009 10:22:19 AM
FACTS:
1. Sam did not seduce Breedlove, who has a history of hooking up with older men before Sam and since Sam. Breedlove did not seek a mentorship from Sam. Breedlove approached Sam and sought a meeting with Sam to "discuss politics", which was just a pretext for going on a date.
2. Breedlove was not a subordinate of Sam. The two were total strangers when they met.
3. Bob Ball's smears did not turn out to be true. Ball alleged that Adams was having sex with a minor. As far as anyone knows, that is false. The fact that there was a kernel of truth to Ball's smear campaign doesn't make Ball any less sleazy. Regardless of whether the story had any truth to it, Ball is a sleazeball for spreading rumors about his opponent for his own political gain.
4. No one seems to notice that, as far as I can tell, every single source for both the Willy Week and Oregonian coverage about this story is an ex-lover of either Sam or Breedlove. A handful of spurned lovers have concocted this whole circus in order to punish the two men. Isn't that a story?
Posted by: Sid Anderson | Jan 22, 2009 10:25:29 AM
Sam Adam's vision and passion for this city matter much more to me than his dishonesty about a sexual relationship. Our schools are in crisis, businesses are in crisis, etc. I believe and trust that Sam has the ability to not only overcome this sexual crisis, but to effectively deal with the crisis affecting all of us as a community. I run a small business, have a two year old and a baby about to pop out any day. I want excellent schools and an environment that my business can continue to thrive in. Sam has what it takes to help make these things happen.
STAY IN OFFICE, SAM!!!!! PLEASE!!!
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jan 22, 2009 10:35:46 AM
I am disappointed in Sam Adams. I don't care a bit about his legal sex life. I regret it has been made public. I am uncomfortable with his lies, but I do not think he should have had to comment on these issues in the first place. I do think he brings a unique vision and energy to Portland public life. We will be a lesser city in the future if he goes. So, it is a dilemma that will say more about us than about Sam. Let's not rush to judgment. Let's give it a little time.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 10:41:51 AM
"I do think he brings a unique vision and energy to Portland public life."
Like he did with Breedlove? I do not think Sam can garantee he won't do that again.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jan 22, 2009 11:19:36 AM
Politicians only resign at the last extremity. And this isn't even close.
Assuming the public thinks this is bad enough to lose one's job over...and considering Clinton's popularity at the end of his term, I doubt it...the next chance they'll get will be in 2012. Until then, the bottom line is Adams is mayor of Portland for the next four years and has the potential to do a lot of good for the city.
Do you want to be part of that, or do you want to spend the next four years bellyaching as if your party was still out of power.
Neopuritan Chickenshit Disease is threatening to kill the Democratic party just when we're getting ready to do some good. Time to circle the wagons and dispute the Republican frame that sex is unforgivably dirty (when a Democrat does it).
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Jan 22, 2009 11:28:33 AM
My sister worked for the Inaugural committee as a volunteer and got to go to a White House reception yesterday where she shook hands with Michelle Obama. It's such a great time right now. To think my beloved Portland, Oregon is on this trip during these exact moments is just not fair. I don't get why Nigel couldn't have waited another few days.
Why now when things are so cool?
Posted by: DanOregon | Jan 22, 2009 11:48:30 AM
Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 12:02:03 PM
"Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go"
Hear hear!
In addition, you could note that Sam has clearly shown that he can not make use of his off time in a very meaningful or constructive manner. He is acting as if he got bored and needed something to do with his off time - and now he is paying the price for his boredom.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 12:03:22 PM
"Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go."
That may seem to be the case, given the media storm, but shouldn't we give this a little while to see if the business of the City can be done effectively?
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 12:04:53 PM
Eric continues to remind is that it's about the sex and about what people do in their spare time.
I nominate Eric to be chief of the newly-organized "effective use of spare time" enforcement squad. His first job can be that of self-examination of his own blogging activity.
Posted by: lw | Jan 22, 2009 12:16:33 PM
Bill McDonald, you wrote a good joke, right? If anyone, you know the details best from last Thursday's WW meeting with Sam, then until Monday where Sam calls WW to confess.
Adams told Nigel that he was spilling the confession and other facts to other media within 20 minutes of this call. If WW didn't post it on their website, it would certainly be posted or printed by the other media.
Sam picked the moment to ruin your sisters party. WW would have waited until their Wednesday printing, at least.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 12:21:31 PM
At least I am not out trolling for males/females that are half my age in order to have shtupping good time...
Posted by: Bob R. | Jan 22, 2009 12:26:07 PM
Thank you Eric for again pointing out that to you, it's about sex.
Posted by: The Dead Horse | Jan 22, 2009 12:39:08 PM
Excuse me....can we talk about something else...I am getting sore from all this flogging...
Posted by: paul g. | Jan 22, 2009 12:50:49 PM
I'm glad to see that the posting has sparked some creative thinking and reflection. I'm disappointed that some responses have devolved into name calling. Regardless, I've found it helpful.
My quick summary:
NO. A leaders public policy positions may be too compelling or too important to lose over a lie.
NO. Sometimes linked with above, this is about sex, this is not about public policy.
MAYBE. Politicians should resign when their capacity for effective leadership has ended.
YES. Politicians should resign when they deceive in a quest for personal power outweighs any concern for the public good.
And just for my own purposes, I'd rate Jeff Alworth's and "Ms. Mel Harmon's" responses as the best of the bunch.
Posted by: paul g. | Jan 22, 2009 12:53:37 PM
Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 22, 2009 8:58:05 AM
Lying and abuse of power in order to win an election. Wasn't that what got Nixon into trouble?
No. Nixon got in trouble for covering up illegal activities, most specifically the Watergate break in, and using Federal law enforcement agencies to further that cover up.
To even mention these events in the same breath shows how out of whack this conversation has been.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Jan 22, 2009 12:54:15 PM
First, it wasn't my sister's party I was worried about. I actually didn't mention what's happening out here when I talked with her. It's not one of those things you call home about.
I just wish the entire thing had been set in motion - including the Thursday meeting - after Inauguration Day was over.
Or even better, way before Inauguration Day. I know! Maybe even before the election.
If anything, I think I was feeling sorry for myself to have to follow this right now.
Anyone in Portland who has counted the seconds 'til Bush and Cheney left office deserved a day of pure celebration.
I realize life doesn't work like that but I'm just saying it would have been nice. Let's just say the timing was unfortunate.
That was part of being annoyed at Sam:
Imagine having a chance to witness that scene in DC, and skipping it to come back here to deal with this instead. That's not the best judgement either, especially if you felt you were innocent.
Ridiculous.
Posted by: thirteenburn | Jan 22, 2009 1:10:52 PM
Considering that the Democrat Party is filled with atheistic pedophiles, this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone with an I.Q. that allows for bladder self control.
If the President can be elected STRICTLY BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN, then it's not a stretch to think that a Democrat Mayor wouldn't have been voted into office strictly based on his sexual deviency, er, preference and in the the People's Republik of Portland no less, nor is it surprising that said Democrat Mayor would think he did nothing wrong in having perveted and twisted sex with an underage boy toy.
Once again, the lynchpin of Democrat Party politics has failed miserably. When you vote people into office based only on the color of their skin or their sexual preferences and not on the true issues of the day, not one iota of good can come from it.
But again, no big surprise here when you consider that the collective stupidity of the whiny, elitst, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart (ONLY for their own elitist ilk), uber-liberal Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their incredible and mind numbing intellectual dishonesty. Well, that as well as that the "Jackasss" is the PERFECT mascot for said Democrat Party.
God help us all indeed...
"A man who reads nothing is far smarter than a man who reads nothing but news." -- T. Jefferson, 1789
Posted by: thirteenburn | Jan 22, 2009 1:10:52 PM
Considering that the Democrat Party is filled with atheistic pedophiles, this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone with an I.Q. that allows for bladder self control.
If the President can be elected STRICTLY BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN, then it's not a stretch to think that a Democrat Mayor wouldn't have been voted into office strictly based on his sexual deviency, er, preference and in the the People's Republik of Portland no less, nor is it surprising that said Democrat Mayor would think he did nothing wrong in having perveted and twisted sex with an underage boy toy.
Once again, the lynchpin of Democrat Party politics has failed miserably. When you vote people into office based only on the color of their skin or their sexual preferences and not on the true issues of the day, not one iota of good can come from it.
But again, no big surprise here when you consider that the collective stupidity of the whiny, elitst, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart (ONLY for their own elitist ilk), uber-liberal Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their incredible and mind numbing intellectual dishonesty. Well, that as well as that the "Jackasss" is the PERFECT mascot for said Democrat Party.
God help us all indeed...
"A man who reads nothing is far smarter than a man who reads nothing but news." -- T. Jefferson, 1789
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2009 1:12:10 PM
I'll add a question to the ones that Paul asked in his post.
Should there be a difference between the standard you use to say, "I wouldn't vote for that guy" and the standard you use to say, "That guy should resign or be recalled" ?
In other words, now that you know what you know, is there a place where some reasonable people could reasonably say, "I wouldn't vote for him again, but he shouldn't resign" ?
---
For my part, I'd argue that there's a higher standard required for overturning the results of an election.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jan 22, 2009 1:21:23 PM
The comparison with Clinton, who committed war crimes in Iraq and Yugoslavia, is sickening. Clinton should have been impeached, convicted and imprisoned for the deaths of over 500,000 children, not for his sexual behavior. Your priorities are disgusting.
Incidentally, Europeans' age of consent is far lower than ours. They look at us as children.
Posted by: Larry Snoklem | Jan 22, 2009 1:23:19 PM
"Sam sailed to an easy primary win was because he's spent 20 years preparing to be mayor."
That actually speaks against him, because in all that time it doesn't seem like he's learned the most important lessons: Don't be a sanctimonious ass while you're lying through your teeth. The truth will set you free.
Maybe he should have taken a few more ethics classes. And maybe a Miss Manners class on losing the arrogance.
B-bye, Sam
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: Eric Parker | Jan 22, 2009 8:54:50 AM
"people have sex, and people lie about it"
Maybe they do, but that does not entitle them to do it with furvor. Lying about anything, sex or otherwise, is bad news for anyone. You may get away with it in your lifetime, but you still have to answer for it when you meet your maker and you better hope He doens't send you where you feel you do not belong.
You have to answer to someone - everyone does eventually. Even Godless wonders like Sam Adams. A criminal investigation will be a mere pittance compared to when he meets his maker in the end result of his life. This is where I acutally pity his poor existance.