Mark Zusman will save Sam Adams' soul
“ ‘The truth can set you free…’. I don’t have the slightest goddamn clue what that means.” Audience member.
Thursday evening, the Oregon Council on the Humanities held a forum entitled “Private Lives in the Public Eye.” While the immediate impetus for the forum was the Sam Adams controversy, the topic has been part of the American dialog since the founding. What Sam Adams is experiencing is nothing new: to be a public figure is to turn over the contents of your private life to anyone who wants to make the effort to dig out the details. And unless they break the law in the pursuit of information, there’s not a damn thing the public figure can do to stop them (and even if they do break the law, it’s too late to do any good). A public figure’s best hope is that what gets found isn’t that toxic skeleton you have been hiding like those dear sweet aunties in Arsenic and Old Lace.
(Forum paneilists Mark Zusman, Caitlin Baggott, Robert Eisinger, Tom Bivins.
See comment #1 for panelist bios and my raw notes from the session, which was excellent, including the audience participation.)
Mayor Adams, of course, committed that most egregious of sins in trying to protect himself: he lied to a journalist. No matter that he was the target of a vicious smear that was itself based on a lie; truth is the least relevant matter in this entire issue. Truth is a moving target, not unlike a fart in the wind. A lie, however, is a big freaking bullseye painted in permanent Sharpie right on your ass. The truth may evade the public’s grasp but the lie, once revealed, is unmistakable, undeniable and unmissable.
By “public”, of course, I mean the “media”. By “media” I do not necessarily mean “journalists” because these are as rare as spotted owls these days (and for the same reasons). The public was not looking to find a reason to mistrust Sam Adams; Nigel Jacquiss, of the Willamette Week, was the person looking, not to bring down Adams but to break a story (along with a number of other reporters from the Mercury and elsewhere; but as he was the one who broke the story, he is the focus of any discussion of the “media” in the Adams/Breedlove story — along with his boss and editor, Mark Zusman). I do not believe for one moment that Jacquiss or Zusman intended at any point to try to bring down Adams or attack him personally. Jacquiss had a story, one that refused to go away just as adamantly as it refused to be verifiable. He’s a reporter; he just did his job.
The trouble is, for me, that the genesis of the entire story was a smear, a lie, an attempt to destroy Sam Adams at the beginning of his race for mayor. The trouble for Sam is that of all the options available to him, he chose the worst. Many people are now angry at him, refusing to trust or support him, calling for his resignation (Willamette Week, Zusman noted with satisfaction on Thursday, is the one local paper taking no stand on whether Adams should remain as mayor: “…there’s been far too much opinion and far too little reporting”). A series of events that were legal and private — Sam’s short-lived and ill-advised relationship with Beau Breedlove — have become the dominant feature of Portland politics because a smear was transformed into a massive political blunder by a man acting out of very natural, very understandable and, for now, very damnable fear.
However, Sam Adams and his supporters need have no fear for the future. There is hope. There is a way out. Confess. Bow before the cleansing power of journalistic scrutiny and find forgiveness and salvation. Barney Frank did it. Gavin Newsome and Anthony Villaraigosa did it. Sam, too, can be absolved and made pure to continue his upward path in politics. All he need do is confess all, abase himself before the public — through the sanctifying grace of the media, and, preferably Willamette Week — and salvation will come.
Seriously. I’m not making this up. This is what Mark Zusman said, and he believes it. The trouble is, my snarky tone aside, I agree with him. I hate that he’s right about this because he and Jacquiss have buried the origination of the story — remember? the lies abou Sam being a pervert faggot predator? the source of Sam’s fear and the reason he made the ruinous decision to lie? — and buried their own guilt in this affair. But that’s the nature of modern American journalism, such as it is: they report the imminent threat of WMDs and whip up the need to go to war, and then, when the lies and insanity come home to roost, scream about those who led us to war, conveniently forgetting to add their massive complicity.
Yes, Sam lied and it was stupid. As Zusman pointed out, correctly, I believe, had Sam told the truth from the get-go, the voters of Portland may well have respected his honesty and and still elected him mayor. It might have taken a general election campaign rather than his easy May 20th victory; but even if it had cost him the 2008 race, by resorting immediately to honesty, his political career would have been far more secure in those circumstances than it currently is. As it is, the lie he told — or rather, the succession of lies he was obligated to tell once the first had been spoken — and its ramifications now threaten to sink his career. But as the panel Thursday night made clear, in an oblique manner, was that the temptation to lie can be almost overwhelming. While most of Portland, and the nation, finds themselves able to cast the first stone, I am unable to comprehend that I would have acted differently in Sam’s place. I know the lies and secrets in my own life, and I know for damn sure there are things I would try to hide with all my might. People could at least be honest about their own willingness to lie in similar circumstances.
But I’m not a candidate for mayor. I have the luxury of my private life. Sam has no private life, and he was a fool, in 2007, to believe he did. He belongs to the world now, to whoever wants to dig into his life and appropriate whatever bits and pieces they want; his responsibility is to grant them access, answer every question they ask, to reveal far more than any private citizen can possibly imagine letting out into the light of day, and to smile and thank God for the Constitution providing the opportunity for his life to become a means for selling papers, motivating political campaigns (Mayor Leonard?) and obliterating his own identity. As UO Journalism Ethics professor Tom Bivens paraphrased Kant, “The more privacy you give up, the less autonomous you are.” Sam Adams owns virtually no autonomy, and he needs to recognize that fact.
(The same can be said for Nigel Jacquiss and Mark Zusman. But the targets on them are tiny. They are journalists, not politicians, so they live under a different set of rules. And I find that somewhat disconcerting. However….)
Run for public office and relinquish the right to be you. You are now what the public and media turn you into. I’m not sure why Sam, who is as smart as they come, not to mentioned experienced in Oregon politics at various levels, didn’t understand that long ago. Perhaps it’s Portland’s small-city feel, the false security that things are different here — they are different here, which is why we live here, but not in all things — the belief, masquerading as hope, that his private life as a gay man would not be invaded by either media or political opponents. Especially gay opponents. He, and the rest of us, now know otherwise. The bar has been lowered to the point where any part of a person’s life is fair game. I think most people understood that long ago, but the actions of Zusman, Jacquiss and Willamette Week — and all the noise-makers in our so-called local media — should have erased from everyone’s minds any false hopes that any part of one’s life is off-limits. Sorry kids. Get your name in the news, and kiss your personal life goodbye.
This state of affairs cannot persist. No one has the kind of squeaky-clean life history our current standards demand. Everyone has made and will continue to make mistakes that will bring shame and dishonor. Those who fear revelation of their private lives will refuse to step forward for public service, and who knows what we may lose as a result? But the problem we face is this (and thanks to Caitlin Baggott for making this point): Mistakes that public persons try to hide can be indicative of many things: An abberation, a one-time mistake. Immature behavior that has since been out-grown. The result of specific conditions not to be encountered again. Character flaws that finally come to light. How do we know which is which? How are we to accurately judge if, in this case, Mayor Adams is a deceitful person never to be trusted again or if what happened truly does not affect his work as an elected official? And given that we not only probably cannot know the “true” answer — that there is no easy yes/no answer to any such question — will our near-impossible standards of what makes a “good” public official weed out more bad actors than good, or will we starve government of the best minds and brightest skills?
Do any of us have the right, competence or personal moral standard to make such judgements? Who among us, to mix two relevant clichés, can throw the first stone and not bust their own glass house?
It’s too late and too bad for Sam. The only thing that can help him now is to push forward with City business, convince those he works with he’s not lying about the budget and other issues (do we really have as high a drop-out rate as he says?), and prove himself an effective and successful mayor. (Or demonstrate that the potential for him to be so still exists.) Undoubtedly, and unfortunately, this will take more than the three or months that will pass before political opportunists try to recall him (and boy howdy, in the middle of this death-spiral recession, the one thing any city needs is a divisive and expensive political showdown). How does Sam survive the next six months as mayor, survive a possible recall and restore his political ambitions?
I suggest that in a couple of months, Sam sit down and talk with Mark Zusman. On the record. Let the raw emotions heal, let the fires die down, and get some actual work as mayor under his belt. Then let the man who almost brought him down serve as the public’s conduit into soul of Sam Adams. By then, I doubt any secrets will remain. If Sam addresses all the questions and all the issues — and I mean all, from why did he kiss a 17-year-old to why he continued to string out Randy Leonard — I am confident most Portlanders will decide, that’s enough. They may decide to dump Sam, but I doubt it. Here’s what Zusman said on Thursday (and my notes are not word-accurate, but the paraphrasing is accurate): “The worst thing Sam did was not respect Portlanders by not telling the truth, not giving them the chance to judge him properly.” Sam can undo that sin by telling the truth, fully and candidly, and doing so to the man who published the stories that brought his career to the brink. I hope he’ll consider it.
In the meantime, I fail to see why we should not all be working with him as mayor, fully and, as much as possible, as if this had not happened. The suggestion that he bought off Amy Ruiz is troubling; the bailing of several top aides does not bode well. But Sam did not build his career on the things that are now threatening him. His political and policy smarts still are in place; he is still a policy wonk of the first order; he still loves the city and wants to continue to serve it as much as anyone on the Council. Plenty of governments have prospered without its officials liking or even trusting one another. If these five people can’t figure a way around the trust issue, then I doubt they’ll figure out how to deal with the recession, transportation problems, race issues, education funding or anything else. They want to lead? Then lead. Put the city first. Set aside hurt feelings. Focus on issues, on data, on policy; give City workers the tools they need to do their jobs. I fail to see how Sam’s lies impact the administration of the Water Bureau, Parks and Rec, the Police & Fire Bureaus and all the other parts of City government that are the responsibility of other people. If they do, it’s because those who are responsible for these agencies choose to let them. If that’s the case, they are the ones who need to resign.
I am, by no means, a Sam Adams apologist. He made a massive mistake, and then he compounded it. He shattered the trust people had put in him, some at considerable political and personal risk. But he’s far from the lone bad guy here; it’s just more fun, and far easier, to make him the focus of all the rage. And at this point in America’s history, we have a ton of rage. It has been great to celebrate the amazing inauguration of Barack Obama, but that did not undo the damage of the past four or five decades. With the economy collapsing, people are terrified. The willingness to forgive the foibles of other people is in short supply. The desire to lash out is tremendous, and if anyone wants to argue that Portlanders are better than that, please, I have some lovely Florida swampland you might want to buy. The trouble is, we need the best person at the helm to get the city through the next few years. Looking around at the pool of available talent, I fail to find anyone who comes close to Sam Adams in providing the range of leadership tools he possesses. We’ve seen, I think, the worst of Sam in the past few weeks. Now, if we give him that last chance we would all demand for ourselves, I think we can also see the best.
|
February 2, 2009 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (80 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: tom t. | Feb 2, 2009 7:17:36 AM
This post is nonsense, TA. There are smears in almost every competitive campaign and Sam, as a longtime campaign pro, has participated in plenty of them over the course of his career. This alleged "smear", as it turns out, had way more than a kernel of truth to it.
It is far too late to cast the first stone at Sam, but allow me to add my own: elected officials are not allowed to make up cover lies, train a witness to lie, and sell that lie with academy award-winning conviction to colleagues, reporters, and the public. And if they ever are, we are screwed.
Yes, most people not only have secrets they want kept about their sex lives, most have also probably told lies about some aspect of their sex lives. But that is completely different from the facts presented in this case. This is about whether someone is honorable enough to enjoy the public confidence required to govern. And yes, elected officials are held to a different standard than the rest of us on how much lying and covering-up they are allowed to engage in. Thank God for that.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 2, 2009 7:36:19 AM
T.A., you don't know that the original "smear" was a lie. Have you looked at KATU's website?
If it was a lie, it was lie by a technicality--two weeks, to be exact. And Adams did not rely on the facts to defend himself, but told a much, much bigger lier, and one that reinforced the ugly stereotype you're referring to even more, i.e., that under the guise of "mentoring" young men, homosexual males groom them for sexual exploitation.
And by the way, Adams smeared another homosexual male, John Vezino, by accusing him of committing rape and telling that to Willamette Week, an accusation Vezino denies. Surely you don't justify that.
I do believe you're honest and sincere in your defense of Adams, T.A., but I would caution you not to get too far out on that limb while the story is still developing. I suspect defending Sam Adams will ultimately prove to be a losing proposition.
Posted by: Garrett | Feb 2, 2009 7:44:21 AM
Insert dead horse...
Now lets go and beat the ever living $hit out of it.
Posted by: OreDuck | Feb 2, 2009 7:51:15 AM
The problem with your entire thesis is that Sam continues to lie. In his first press conference he emphatically stated this was the whole truth. Days later it surfaces that they kissed when Beau was 17. Oops! I guess he forgot. But now that is really the whole truth. Really. And of course now we have friends of Beau coming forth to tell us what we really already know- that the sexual contact happened before Beau was 17. They know this because he bragged about it. Although I question his motives I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he was 17. Adams does not get that same benefit from me. He should have known better. This is no longer just a bad choice, it is a crime.
As a gay man who struggles for acceptance, I am tired of being grouped with middle aged men who can't keep it in their pants around the young ones. Grow up.
As a concept, I was totally sold on Sam. I love his views on issues and I agree with his intended policies- but that doesn't matter anymore because he has been rendered moot by his own bad, immature decisions. It was not a one-time transgression. He has acknowledged that. His judgment will be forever questioned. I feel however as this plays out, whether or not he is Mayor is going to be the very least of his problems.
Best of luck Sam. I hope you have learned something valuable from all this.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Feb 2, 2009 8:24:30 AM
All valid points. The recall debate will be about whether he has a soul worth saving. It's become something of an assumption, and, as such, not debatable. Since you can't debate assumptions, I won't try, not that there won't be 70+ responses trying to do just that!
I think your last two graphs sum it up perfectly. Like it or not, local progressives are having to balance the hope that he learned something against Obama's positive hope in their conceptual political space. The penultimate graph sums up my feelings 100%. I don't take that as a yea or nee on Sam, though I fear most partisans will. I'll have to read on to see which camp we're in...
Posted by: Stan F. | Feb 2, 2009 8:38:19 AM
TA, Im sure you and the rest of BO supported Larry Flint's efforts to dig up dirt on Republicans sex lives.
Isn't it a bitch when that happens to your bitch (Sam Adams)?
Posted by: Mak | Feb 2, 2009 8:52:22 AM
I agree with everything OreDuck said. Responsibility is required from all of our leaders--we don't get to differentiate based on sexual orientation. And on the social level, it is especially egregious for the GLBTQ community. "To whom much is given, much is required" is an interpretive axiom at play here. Sam did not meet the obligations of leadership. That's the bottom line.
Posted by: Norm! | Feb 2, 2009 8:59:01 AM
Yet another non-Portlander Adams apologist arguing Adams-did-wrong-but-he-shouldn't-resign-and-is-really-the-victim-of-the-Willy-Week-meanies. Blantantly lying to voters for 16 MONTHS and twisting his romance with a 17-year-old as "mentoring" had nothing to do with protecting his personal life. Adams lied to protect his political career and defeat his opponents. And we are still finding out that Adams has continued to lie since his arrogant attempt to gloss-over the scandal and "apologize" two-weeks ago.
Voters, especially the gay community members Adams claims to represent, have the right to demand that our leaders lead a higher standard than mere legal code. Being progressive and open-minded doesn't mean we ignore character flaws or give those on "our team" a free pass.
Not only did Adams engage in a cover-up campaign for 16 months, he used his office to cruise and hook-up with a 17-year-old for a romantic relationship. While Breedlove is ultimately responsible for his life choices, one wonders if Breedlove would have made different choices if Adams had not affirmed that sex is his only way to connect with powerful political leaders. Adams' City Hall "mentoring" may have contributed to Breedlove's descent from a early high school graduate and legislative intern to daddy-chasing, convicted felon, and potential porn mag pin-up.
Posted by: Tamerlane | Feb 2, 2009 9:12:09 AM
Jack Roberts (above) made the exact same points I was about to make. There is no reason at this point to assume the original "smear" was in fact a "lie." For example, Beau Breedlove's father has apparently told KATU that he believes it was not. Conversely, I would add, what we do know is that Adams has (in the course of this developing issue) intentionally and with malice smeared at least three persons: John Vezina ("rapist"), Wade Nkrumah (can't handle the stress), and Bob Ball (supports gay teen suicide).
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 2, 2009 9:24:18 AM
Norm, i've lived in Portland, off and on, since 1981. i've been back in the city since June 1987.
Posted by: Roy M | Feb 2, 2009 9:35:17 AM
Ted Kennedy redeemed himself and became a success in the minds of progressives even after the terrible crime he committed against Mary Jo Kopechne. He never confessed to anyone, and he did just fine. Sam should have no problem at all with his "Beaulita" escapades in the progressive city of Portland, even if he never confesses to anyone about the totality of it all.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 2, 2009 9:41:00 AM
TA, Im sure you and the rest of BO supported Larry Flint's efforts to dig up dirt on Republicans sex lives.
Not even close. I've never supported any of Flint's misguided, self-aggrandizing attempts to inject himself into politics.
I have and will continue to enjoy the various Republican gay sex scandals because they invariably feature the most shameless of hypocrisy by privately indulging in the very behavior which they very publically have tried to legally sanction when others engage in it. Sam Adams, of course, has never agitated against gay rights or gay marriage or gay sex. That's something that Larry Craig et al simply cannot say about themselves. It's not the sex, it's not the lies, it's the hypocrisy!
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Feb 2, 2009 9:42:03 AM
T.A.-
In my opinion, you have written the most thoughtful piece on this subject so far.
Thank you.
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 2, 2009 9:50:44 AM
T.A., you seem to neglect the possibility that the "smear" Jacquiss and WW were investigating might have (and still might be, as facts break) true.
Ball's intention in passing on the rumor may have been entirely malicious, but in the wake of the Goldschmidt scandal -- which I might point out broke only a year before Adams pursued Breedlove -- I have to wonder why you think WW should have just completely ignored the possibility of a local politician having sex with someone who was under the age of legal consent; shouldn't have even asked Adams about it. That just seems incredibly irresponsible.
The fact is, Adams did something incredibly stupid by having an affair with Breedlove, even if it was entirely legal. He knew it was incredibly stupid, which is why he lied about it, asked others to lie about it, and has continued to lie about it to this very day. If he hadn't thought hooking up briefly with an 18-year-old was a political liability, there would have been no reason to conceal it. The lying merely compounded his stupidity, and it's turned him into a sort of Chevy Chase caricature, tripping over and over on the lies he's casually thrown about.
Worst of all (for him), he just can't seem to stop himself. Every time he's opened his mouth over the past couple weeks he's tossed off another lie, only to have it discredited within a day or two. But he's either so eager to prove himself in the right that he keeps sticking his foot in or so conceited that he doesn't think anyone could possibly contradict him on his latest falsehood.
Who knows? Maybe he believes what he's saying. Then again, maybe Ball thought Adams had sex with Breedlove when he was 17.
Posted by: Liz | Feb 2, 2009 9:58:30 AM
Thanks for reviewing the event. I couldn't go and was curious about the discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful reading of the situation. Although I detest public invasions of sexuality, I agree that Mayor Adams will probably need to make a public confession and appear more contrite in order to salvage his political career.
Perhaps someone should get him a copy of Susan Wise Bauer's The Art of the Public Grovel: Sexual Sin and Public Confession in America . It suggests that politicians can survive sexual transgressions if they embrace the evangelical practices that rule American culture: public confession and a public call for help in overcoming sin. The media and public get what they want - more talk about sex and sin and a public performance of remorse. After a public figure has groveled sufficiently, critics can forgive, and everyone can move on to other business until the media churns up another sex scandal.
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 2, 2009 10:14:09 AM
TA, Im sure you and the rest of BO supported Larry Flint's efforts to dig up dirt on Republicans sex lives.
Actually, Larry Flynt offered up to $1 million to anyone who could come up with an affirmative answer to: "Can you provide documented evidence of illicit sexual or intimate relations with a Congressperson, Senator or other prominent officeholder?" He didn't just target Republicans.
Posted by: Norm! | Feb 2, 2009 10:53:22 AM
Sorry, TA. I thought some of your other posts listed you as from Corvallis.
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 2, 2009 11:14:47 AM
After a public figure has groveled sufficiently, critics can forgive, and everyone can move on to other business until the media churns up another sex scandal.
Yeah, it's the media's fault!
This sure gets old. Any politician who wants cover for anything blames the media.
It's the media's job to ask questions of politicians, government representatives, and public figures. If a politician decides not to answer the question, that's all well and good it's incumbent on the media to prove any allegations they may make or face the consequences in the loss of credibility, but if the politician lies to cover their tracks and gets other people to lie to cover their tracks, it's only because they think their tracks need covering.
Adams had a chance to use his "leadership tools" back when this story came out in 2007. Maybe they -- as TA would assert -- are fine tools, just poorly implemented in this instance, but I think the way Adams chose to deal with this -- repeatedly and over a period of more than a year -- shows that those tools are broken and twisted, and it makes me wonder just how open he's going to be with the citizens of this city about actual city business.
Everyone assumes he's going to learn a lesson in humility, but what if he instead has learned a lesson in evasion?
Posted by: ws | Feb 2, 2009 11:17:44 AM
One thing for certain, is that if Adams has any intention of staying as mayor and getting anything done, all romances with people 'around the area of 17 years of age' will be for him, either off-limits or much more discreet than the doo-dah with Breedlove was. Adams could still have fun and provoke controversy though. There's lots of things that Adams could do, legally, but shouldn't do as part of his personal life, that would raise hackles within the public. He may have figured that giving up those things is worth being mayor, since he's so far, not resigning.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Feb 2, 2009 11:25:12 AM
TA,
One of the comments on Blue Oregon described the dangers of being gay back in the 1950s. Just about every era has some aspects that seem so blatantly wrong, that it's hard to imagine they happened. I think when they look back at these times, the gay marriage debate will seem hopelessly primitive. To me it's a no-brainer: There's an attractive person whom a lot of people want to marry. Some can because they're one sex, others can't because they're another. That's a violation of equal protection.
Of course, the religious right has cherry-picked this issue while ignoring other parts of the Bible that are left in the past because these other rules are hopelessly dated, primitive, and indefensible. I believe this will all look very archaic in a few decades - just as the anti-gay laws from the 1950s appear now.
When Bill Clinton was busted for Monica, I was hoping he'd step to the podium and say, "Yes, I got oral sex from her. I love oral sex. If I wasn't talking to you right now, I'd be back in the office getting some more right now." You know..diffuse the issue with honesty as we await the inevitable time in our progress when sex is seen for what it is.
And I do mean progress. There was a time when getting divorced was career suicide. Or go back further when women were treated like property. I hated it when Bill Clinton tried to act contrite even getting priests to come in and talk him out of enjoying oral sex. As with Sam's proclamations about how inappropriate a consensual adult relationship can be, it just seemed counterproductive and ridiculous.
Of course, Monica also involved some workplace problems - it wasn't just sex. Still, our inability to cope with sexual realities is not helping us. One example was the reported blackmail of J. Edgar Hoover over his sex life that could possibly have led to more power for the Mafia, etc...If he had been free to live as he pleased, we would have had a better society.
So I understand all this, and each scandal is part of a long march towards getting over our weird feelings about sex.
From the first days of this, I wrote that if the sex was consensual and legal,
Sam shouldn't even think about resigning. However these adjacent issues such as the deal with the Mercury reporter are a hell of a lot more than "troubling." They remind me of Richard Nixon using his power against us. The reporter component of this reeks. The smearing of others by Sam is also right out of the Nixon playbook. The phrase is "abuse of power" and that will always be a reason to remove a politician no matter how happy you are with his wonk-like abilities.
The real problem I have with your post is that you present things as facts that are not necessarily facts. It's exactly what the religious right does when they start by saying something is the word of God, when they could be wrong.
In short, I thought you got a little carried away with yourself here. Your phrase about Sam that, "He belongs to
the world now" sums up your take: It's overly pompous and dramatic, and strays from what you really know to be true, while avoiding some genuine questions about abuse of power. In that, it's just more pro-Sam spin.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 2, 2009 11:30:13 AM
One of the odder aspects of democracy, and many other political systems, is that The People expect their leaders to profess and practice behavior somewhere near the mean of the social mores of the collective population. This is odd because, looking as a whole at those who put themselves forward for political office, politicians as a class have very little in common with The People they presume to represent.
I'm sorry public officials' lives are not private; but they are not, and they never have been--look back as far or farther than Machiavelli's advice in The Prince about the need to appear pious in public. This fact no doubt denies us many of our potentially most valuable technicians and nimble minds; those who fall outside the mean are often the most creative and ground-breaking. They are the experimenters and the risk takers, and as such often as not have skeletons in their closets that would disqualify them from office for no other reason than that The People don't go for that kind of thing.
This is true whether or not Adams' broke the law, which is why I think so many have been sympathetic to him over the manifest unfairness of the world. Which is why his web of lies is seen by some as justified and not indicative of larger character flaws. Not trying to be profound here; just profoundly sad.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 11:54:56 AM
Posted by: Roy M | Feb 2, 2009 9:35:17 AMTed Kennedy redeemed himself and became a success in the minds of progressives even after the terrible crime he committed against Mary Jo Kopechne.
The only "crime" Ted Kennedy committed was leaving the scene of the ACCIDENT without immediately reporting it (he did so around 10 hours after the accident). Unless you are claiming there is some other "crime" than the aforementioned Chappaquiddick car ACCIDENT.
The Kennedy's seem to be a bette noir for some.
Posted by: Torridjoe | Feb 2, 2009 11:57:41 AM
Ball deserves no apology--he made allegations without any stated basis. There is still not a single person on record who claims they have information on an illegal relationship. And if Vezins didn't try to assault Beau, then it it the latter who smeared him, not Sam.
If there are text msgs as alleged, the truth will out. But as it stands now,you have anonymous friends who say they don't know, and another anonymous friend who claims he does. And has anyone considered whether Beau is reliable himself? Sam sounds like he was a trophy for Beau; would his apparent need to brag about it also lead to exaggeration? Eg to say you were already having sex before you in fact got to?
Posted by: darrelplant | Feb 2, 2009 12:05:03 PM
I'm sorry public officials' lives are not private; but they are not, and they never have been--look back as far or farther than Machiavelli's advice in The Prince about the need to appear pious in public.
I wouldn't have any particular problem with a politician who was honest about casually hooking up with women or men. But for someone to Gary Hart it, to declaim their absolute innocence when they know that what they're saying is a bald-faced lie is just idiotic.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 12:07:54 PM
The fact is, Adams did something incredibly stupid by having an affair with Breedlove, even if it was entirely legal. He knew it was incredibly stupid, which is why he lied about it, asked others to lie about it, and has continued to lie about it to this very day. If he hadn't thought hooking up briefly with an 18-year-old was a political liability, there would have been no reason to conceal it. The lying merely compounded his stupidity, and it's turned him into a sort of Chevy Chase caricature, tripping over and over on the lies he's casually thrown about.
I disagree with the central premise of this write-up by T.A. in that if Adams had a clue, he should have emphatically said at the outset that he has never engaged in sex with anyone against their consent, and beyond that it is nobody's business who he is screwing. If he did nothing illegal even though he is a public figure holding elected office, if it is consensual sex it is NEVER the public's business and claiming it is, which T.A. does say, is a major mistake. This would have nipped the entire issue in the bud if he said he has never had sex with anyone without their consent and it's nobody's business beyond that.
That said, the portion of darrel's post quoted above, I concur with fully. This really speaks volumes as to how stupid Adams is in how he comports himself, on numerous levels, and (as T.A. does touch on in this piece) how stupid he treats Portlanders.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 2, 2009 12:15:55 PM
MZ — BlueOregon has crossed a line with Kari & Charlie’s “participation” with Sam - something his paper would never condone.
With the exception of the talented Carla Axtman, Blue Oregon doesn't do a lot of original reporting. It's advocacy basically -- and I think we do a pretty good job of disclosure when appropriate. So, the considerations for a reporter at WWeek are different than someone who writes here as a contributor. I think Zusman's making the right call for his paper, btw, but that doesn't mean there's anything improper about Kari or me becoming a participant or partisan in a story, as long as we err on the side of transparency.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 12:16:02 PM
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 2, 2009 11:30:13 AMI'm sorry public officials' lives are not private; but they are not, and they never have been--look back as far or farther than Machiavelli's advice in The Prince about the need to appear pious in public.
I disagree. If Adams, or any political figure, simply says "I never have or will have sex with anyone without their consent, beyond that it's none of your business or anyone else's" then it does slam the door shut (and rightly so) and makes it a political liability for anyone to play the bedroom-police (particularly in liberal communities like Portland).
In fact, I wager that any politician to be so forthright and unapologetic would gain more political kudos with the electorate than the pious sanctimonious frauds that most everyone it playing in this debacle (and have in previous ones as well).
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Feb 2, 2009 12:37:24 PM
"Mayor Adams, of course, committed that most egregious of sins in trying to protect himself: he lied to a journalist. No matter that he was the target of a vicious smear that was itself based on a lie; truth is the least relevant matter in this entire issue. Truth is a moving target, not unlike a fart in the wind. A lie, however, is a big freaking bullseye painted in permanent Sharpie right on your ass. The truth may evade the public’s grasp but the lie, once revealed, is unmistakable, undeniable and unmissable."
T.A.,
I think you are doing what a lawyer might call "assuming facts not in evidence." Sam Adams is only the target of a "vicious smear," (in this instance I take the unnamed smear to be sexual relations with a minor) to the extent it proves true that he waited until after Breedlove's 18th birthday to have a sexual relationship with him. At least two public declarations by Adams about the facts of the relationship have now proved to be, in Ron Ziegler's formulation, "no longer operative," so I don't think Adams should really be entitled to the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Assuming we now have the truth about what happened, i.e., Sam Adams only kissed Breedlove when he was 17 and had sex with him when it was 18, I think Sam Adams lied to WW because he knew the truth would be received by and large for what it is: creepy. I'm 38 now and like a lot of people my age, when I look at someone who is 17 or 18 years old, they look like a kid to me. Someone at that age might be objectively beautiful, but they just really don't register with me as an object of desire, and I think a big part of that is that people that age seem like just kids. Having talked with others about Adams's relationship with Breedlove, I think many people find it creepy. I think Adams knew his relationship with Breedlove would be received as creepy because of the age difference between the two of them, and that the creepiness of it would turn his political career into a punchline in the heat of a campaign (when he eventually would have to respond to the press about the relationship with some variation on "he was very mature and worldly for his age!"), and, thus, he lied about it. Again, assuming all the facts as now known are THE facts of the relationship between Breedlove and Adams, I think the real questions with Adams are (a) how skeevy do you find Adams's conduct, and (b) if you find it really skeevy, what do you do about it now?
In the absence of the emergence of a compelling alternative to Sam Adams (akin to having Arnold Schwarzenegger announce he is going to run for governor while the question of recall is pending), I suspect a recall effort will founder after the initial shock of the disclosure fades. For what it is worth, I do not think someone like Sho Dozono would be a compelling alternative. I think it would have to be someone with name recognition who is capable of clearly articulating a vision for where they want to take Portland as a city, and whose background is suggestive of the capability to move the city in the direction of that vision.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 2, 2009 1:04:50 PM
Norm, i moved back quite a while ago. but having lived there gave me a much broader understanding of Oregon as a whole, undid a lot of Portland-centric thinking i had before that.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 2, 2009 1:06:14 PM
Randy, thank you and good luck.
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 2, 2009 1:15:02 PM
The truth does not set you free if you have committed a felony. Sexual acts with a minor are a felony. Kissing and groping a minor are a felony, even if there was no genital sex. The lies aside, there is no political redemption for Adams the way it is looking to me. I think he faces jail time.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Feb 2, 2009 1:24:45 PM
Mayor Adams, of course, committed that most egregious of sins in trying to protect himself: he lied to a journalist. No matter that he was the target of a vicious smear that was itself based on a lie; truth is the least relevant matter in this entire issue.
Just write this and say this enough times, with enough vigor, and people will accept it.
No matter that he was the target of a vicious smear that was itself based on a lie....
Methinks someone doth protest too much.
truth is the least relevant matter in this entire issue
Especially for the mayor. No no no, this is not about truth but about homophobia, newly discovered after the mayor's landslide electoral victory last spring. If it hadn't been for the hordes of homophobes, Adams would have won not 60% but rather 80% or more. I mean, how could any rational person think that Adams was not The Man For The Job? And now those hordes of homophobes have taken over the local media and Blue Oregon.
Who among us, to mix two relevant clichés, can throw the first stone and not bust their own glass house?
This is an insulting distraction. We are all responsible for our mistakes, our lies, our fuck-ups. I can choose to forgive Sam Adams, but that choice makes the mayor not one whit less responsible for his actions.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Feb 2, 2009 1:36:16 PM
However, Sam Adams and his supporters need have no fear for the future. There is hope. There is a way out. Confess. Bow before the cleansing power of journalistic scrutiny and find forgiveness and salvation. Barney Frank did it. Gavin Newsome and Anthony Villaraigosa did it. Sam, too, can be absolved and made pure to continue his upward path in politics. All he need do is confess all, abase himself before the public — through the sanctifying grace of the media, and, preferably Willamette Week — and salvation will come.
For those of us not coming from an evangelical Christian background like TA Barnhart, the irony intended here is likely not only to fall flat, but to be offensive in its own right. Confession, cleansing power, salvation, grace: enough evangelical verbiage here, folks? Here's what I think about this verbiage: it's all one enormous distraction. If you get caught up in the confessional mindset, you lose track of the fact that the putative confession etc. is all about actions.
I really couldn't care about Sam Adams' feeling regarding Judgment Day, but I care a great deal about his feelings and actions regarding Election Day.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 2, 2009 2:20:50 PM
jdw, did you not understand i was echoing Zusman's words? i don't think Sam needs anyone's grace; he needs to get to work and take care of City business. that's the only place he'll find the kind of redemption that matters.
you say it's about actions as if they possess a priori meaning, but no action means anything other than what observers deem it to mean. your statements indicate a set of moral standards of which Sam has fallen short; you are not waving his "failings" off, so apparently you, as much as any christian (and i'm not one), require Sam to seek forgiveness, absolution and the rest. you bear, in effect, religious intent hidden in secular language.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 2, 2009 2:21:45 PM
BlueOregon has crossed a line with Kari & Charlie’s “participation” with Sam - something his paper would never condone
I'm really curious what line Marc Zusman thinks we've crossed.
Certainly, BlueOregon has never pretended to be an unbiased journalistic endeavor. For god's sake, it's called BLUE Oregon. And I, personally, have repeatedly said that "I am not a journalist" - most recently in this excellent piece over at WillametteLive.com.
Why should an advocacy blog abide by rules intended for other activities? That'd be like insisting that NFL players can't tackle - because that's what the rules are in baseball. Different game; different rules.
I do believe that advocacy bloggers should use their real names and should disclose their paid affiliations. And while we're pretty adamant about that here at BlueOregon, I'm well aware that there are many other advocacy blogs that don't.
Marc, if you're reading, would you care to tell us what unwritten and unspoken "rule" of advocacy blogging Charlie and I have violated? Or are you trying to apply the rules of journalism to what we do?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 2:25:32 PM
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Feb 2, 2009 12:37:24 PMAssuming we now have the truth about what happened, i.e., Sam Adams only kissed Breedlove when he was 17 and had sex with him when it was 18, I think Sam Adams lied to WW because he knew the truth would be received by and large for what it is: creepy. I'm 38 now and like a lot of people my age, when I look at someone who is 17 or 18 years old, they look like a kid to me.
Do you consider someone who solicits and 'grooms' a 17 year old to become a trained killer "creepy"...?
Is someone who offers to a 17 year the keys to a car "creepy"...?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 2:29:04 PM
Posted by: Bill R. | Feb 2, 2009 1:15:02 PM
You talking out your hat doesn't make it the law. Please cite the felonies for which you claim are at issue here.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "minor felony" in law. Lesser crimes are called misdemeanors, not felonies.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Feb 2, 2009 2:34:22 PM
you, as much as any christian (and i'm not one), require Sam to seek forgiveness, absolution and the rest. you bear, in effect, religious intent hidden in secular language.
Not at all, and you will note that Adams has very aggressively stated that he feels no need at all to apologize to Bob Ball, the guy whom you (without actually naming him) called a smear monger. Nope, forgiveness, absolution, the whole Christian routine is not mine at all. What I require is a mayor I can trust. I haven't got one. Adams' "vision" does not moliify me as a substitute for trust. If it does for you, so be it. YMMV.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 2, 2009 2:37:24 PM
lestatdelc,
I'm not saying it's right; I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that's the way it is--a public figure is always going to be held to a different standard than a private one. To use a non-moral illustration about politicians having publicly hold to the golden mean, how many high-level male politicians have pony tales? Why do politicians continue to wear that most silly and archaic of accouterments--the tie--in televised debates? Because they have to pretend they are squarely in the middle.
Adams knew that, and, providing he's telling the truth about birthdays, that's why he chose to hide behavior he knew part of the electorate would find, "creepy."
Would that it weren't so, but it is and I doubt there's anything that will ever change that.
Posted by: sean cruz | Feb 2, 2009 2:44:34 PM
Portland’s crisis of leadership over the Mayor’s sexual relationship with a teenager and subsequent events has now metastasized to its other elected officials at all levels of government.
The vacuum of leadership is broader than the focus on City Hall would have one think, reaching also to the turtles and ostriches among the Multnomah County Commissioners and at the Oregon Legislature, where the sordid affair began, answering the question of how many leaders can dance on the head of a pin, Oregon-style.
The Williamette Week and other news organizations have noted the mealy-mouthed, deer-in-the-headlights responses of each of the City Commissioners, both collectively and individually failing to assert anything even faintly resembling leadership, each needing time to sort out what this all means in terms of their future re-election hopes, slip-sliding away….
I served as former senator Avel Gordly’s chief of staff through the 2003-2008 legislative sessions, where my responsibilities included the safety and general wellbeing of every person working in her office.
Senator Gordly never failed to remind me that the safety of her interns was paramount, and I took her instructions seriously. It irritated the heck out of them, but I always insisted on knowing when our interns were arriving at the Capitol and when they were leaving, even though none were minors.
If our interns had been minors, I would have brought anything odd to Senator Gordly’s immediate attention, and she would have swiftly taken appropriate action.
As a father of both sons and daughters, I am not much interested in parsing the issue in the ways that many others want to, on whether the sex was technically legal. I see it in another way….
A middle-aged man from another city, an elected official actually, shows up at your son or daughter’s 18th birthday party, bringing along a date and a story about a mentoring relationship for cover….
Next thing you know, he’s screwing your child now that the jailbait issue has been put to bed, so to speak….
Even worse, it’s all in public, because beyond his violation of your family’s trust, it’s about the middle-aged man from another city’s job, and he has his share of vocal supporters and there are many people who just want to get on with business as usual….
The admission that the middle-aged man from another city was dating multiple partners at the time, that he saw his relationship with your man/child as casual and short term is a dimension that only a parent can understand, and few of the Mayors supporters appear to be actual parents.
There is no question in my mind that Sam Adams has the smarts, the charm, the ideas and the in-depth knowledge of the machinery of the city to have been a great mayor for Portland, and it is sad to lose those qualities….
Apologies and remorse, however, will not overcome the practical realities that Mayor Adams has imposed on the community.
It is unthinkable that he would be a welcome visitor to any of Portland’s schools, public or private, for a good long time. Juxtaposing the Mayor with 17- and 18-year olds is just not going to work….
As Portland’s chief ambassador, the interview videos and everything else will precede him everywhere he goes, coloring the discussion of the business of Portland in every aspect.
This is too steep a price to pay, although the Bangkok-Portland Sister City relationship might be on a fast track now, and Portland’s Cherry-Poppin’ Daddies might see a surge of bookings, plenty of material for a new CD here….
Sam Adams has given a great deal to Portland over his many years of service, but it is time for him to let it go and resign the office.
And it is long past time for our elected leaders to stick their heads out of their shells and lead, if they still can….
Sean Cruz writes Blogolitical Sean: www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 2:54:38 PM
So Sean Cruz, do you approve of middle-aged people soliciting to train your minor teenagers to be trained killers, or is your hang-up just giving middle-aged people orgasms?
So in your world-view 17 year old trained killers are a.o.k. but 17 year olds giving someone an orgasm is the horrific?
What about people who are devoted followers of a group the promotes the idea of parent-teacher sexual fantasies?
Posted by: Roy M | Feb 2, 2009 3:00:57 PM
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 2:25:32 PM: "The only "crime" Ted Kennedy committed was leaving the scene of the ACCIDENT without immediately reporting it (he did so around 10 hours after the accident)".
I'll bet Mary Jo would have hoped help was a little less than 10 hours away as her last air pockets disappeared, but hey, as long as Ted was OK.
My point was that Kennedy remains a very successful politician today in spite of his well documented debauchery, and Chappaquiddick. The Mayor could easily survive as well, but are you sure this is the guy you want running the City?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 3:04:33 PM
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Feb 2, 2009 2:37:24 PMlestatdelc,
I'm not saying it's right; I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that's the way it is--a public figure is always going to be held to a different standard than a private one.
Have to disagree somewhat.
Most public officials treat sex as the puritanical wing-nutty taboo in public life that allow this nonsense to make their own "private lives" public fodder. If they acted like adults about it and told the public it is none of their business, you know, treat the public like adults, this nonsense wouldn't be an issue.
While I think people like former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura is a goof on some levels, and not on-board with some of his positions and policies, he summed it up best back in the day when he told the media to go fly when they wanted to dig into his personal life, and Minnesotans applauded (and elected) him for it.
The fraudulent fake sanctimony, hypocrisy and seriously screwed up sense of prioties, propriety and moral compass of weak public figures like some who have run for elected office and who have posted in this very thread is part of the problem.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 3:08:34 PM
Posted by: Roy M | Feb 2, 2009 3:00:57 PMI'll bet Mary Jo would have hoped help was a little less than 10 hours away as her last air pockets disappeared, but hey, as long as Ted was OK.
Sorry, but your home-school version of CSI-ing will not alter the fact that it was an accident nor the relevancy of his less than 10 hour before walking into the police station would have made your made-up "air pockets" save her life.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 3:13:39 PM
Posted by: Roy M | Feb 2, 2009 3:00:57 PMThe Mayor could easily survive as well, but are you sure this is the guy you want running the City?
FYI, I am agnostic on Adams. I just find the puerile witch-hunting and attendant hypocrisy and seriously out of whack moral compasses at all those railing against a young adult having sex consensual sex with someone else in the uproar over this "scandal" to be enough to want to projectile vomit.
That said I think this incident shows he has extremely poor judgment and his ability to lie repeatedly may be fatal for him to be an effective mayor, which are the open questions and only reasons I question (and why I'm am agnostic) on wether he should still be mayor.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 2, 2009 3:15:35 PM
ugh.
...screwed up sense of prioties
Should be:
...screwed up sense of priorities
Preview is your friend Mitch.
Posted by: j_luthergoober | Feb 2, 2009 3:39:58 PM
"...but are you sure this is the guy you want running the City?"
Voted for Ted twice, post Chappaquiddick, the reason being he consistently acted on behalf of his constituents' concerns. I'm not saying that driving drunk in a fog bank is good judgement, but helping a Vietnam vet get housing and therapy sure was... That's why Ted gets re-elected; he always helps the little guy.
The best thing Sam could do now deflect criticism by moving to establish a Civilian Oversight/Review Board for the Police Department. Could the new mantra positing that good things come from crisis find realization in PDX? Somehow, in this half-horse town, I doubt it.
Posted by: Not Really Jacoby Ellsbury | Feb 2, 2009 4:14:18 PM
Do you consider someone who solicits and 'grooms' a 17 year old to become a trained killer "creepy"...?
Is someone who offers to a 17 year the keys to a car "creepy"...?
lestatdelc,
What are you talking about?
In the former example, I can't tell if you are referring to the plot of a movie like "Le Femme Nikita" or if you are referring to military recruiting. For what it is worth, I would consider a military recruiter making sexual advances on a potential high-school-age recruit creepy.
In the latter example, who is giving a 17-year-old the keys to a car (and for what reason)?
As a general rule, any time the facts lend themselves to jokes about a 42-YO adult going to prom with a high schooler as their date, you can pretty much guarantee you've entered the realm of creepy.
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: t.a. barnhart | Feb 2, 2009 6:55:20 AM
Forum panelists: Tom Bivins, John L. Hulteng Chair in Media Ethics at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication
Caitlin Baggott, director of Politicorps, a program of the Bus Project, a nonprofit political organization
Robert Eisinger, associate professor and chair of the political science department at Lewis & Clark College
Mark Zusman, editor of the Willamette Week
moderated by
Peter Steinberger, dean of the faculty of Reed College and Robert H. and Blanche Day Ellis Professor of Political Science and Humanities
notes (scribbled but reasonably accurate)
CB — professionals have codes of ethics - none for public officials (of the same sort) - City of Pdx has one, 4 main points - the elements not covered by law are advisory only - media does not but should have code
TB — the “counter-balance” to the argument “does it affect performance” is character
RE — citizens are better informed about who to elect with more info than with less - ok for media to query, ok for officials to say “myob”
TB — courts have allowed media to define what “newsworthy” is - the zone of privacy has gotten smaller and smaller -what do you do when the people who are likely to invade your zone of privacy are the people who define that zone?
MZ — BlueOregon has crossed a line with Kari & Charlie’s “participation” with Sam - something his paper would never condone
CB — people tend to apply more focus and energy to public life than their chaotic private life
CB — “habits of leadership” - does a person’s private life create habits you see in their public life? is what you see a pattern (also seen in their private life) or a “blunder”?
RE — when examing politics as outcome-oriented, plenty of examples of great leaders with character flaws (eg, Churchill) - when we see politics as more than outcomes (good administrators) then character and integrity matter
PS — troubled by idea that character is a simple thing, that what we see in private is transferable to public - that’s too simple
TB — we expect a person of sound moral character to be consistent in all things - no one can live up to that standard - history is full of people who have had horrible private lifes & yet did great things as leaders
TB — we live in an age where young people live their private lives publically
CB — older people she’s talked to about Sam are concerned about the sex; younger people about the lying
TB — viral rumors spread thru the Net - the blogosphere is at the place journalism was 100 years ago
MZ — [why WW is the only local paper not to take a stand on whether Sam should resign] - far too much opinion and far too little reporting - worst thing Sam did was not respect Portlanders by not telling the truth, not giving them the chance to judge him properly
TB — when you lie to somone they act differently than when you tell them the truth
AUD — not a generational shift but an historical shift - we’re all being drawn into a new definition of public - we’ve become more sophisticated
PS — or maybe we’ve all become more cynical - for public figures success is hiding flaws from the media
CB — what’s the difference between privacy & secrets? are there secrets that should be private, for public figures?
TB — public/private dichotomy is cultural - in some, you are a different person in different settings, and that’s right - Kant: the more privacy you give up, the less autonomous you are
AUD — “the truth can set you free” - i don’t have the slightest goddamn clue what that means
MZ — the Sam Adams story: 1) about Sam destroying Bob Ball’s political career, 2) buying off Amy Ruiz, and 3) trying to give Police Bureau to Randy Leonard because Randy had Sam’s back
MZ — cheer up: there’s a long history of redemption, political figures who came back from shame to success - and for one reason: they confessed
PS — assumes if someone lies about one thing they’ll be lying about others
AUD — public sphere is like church - we put public figures thru ? to make them pure & look like us - aka, representative - we live in a culture of moral humiliation
TB — we want them to be the best of us but to be us - perhaps we expect too much from them
MZ — discouraged, but understandably, but mob notion “cut off Sam’s head” - encouraged by number of people who realize this is not about sexual orientation but about the lying
RE — “Partisan Absolution” - when it’s “your” guy, you tend to be more forgiving