David Wu plans 2012 re-election campaign

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Under normal circumstances, incumbent members of Congress are assumed to be running for re-election unless they say otherwise.

But given all that's transpired and been revealed about Congressman David Wu in recent days, lots of political observers have been wondering aloud whether he intends to run again.

It turns out that buried deep in an Associated Press story earlier this week, his spokesman indicated that yes, Wu's running again:

Wu's spokesman said the congressman has no plans to resign and will seek re-election in 2012. "It will be up to his constituents to decide whether he's proven himself," Dorey said.

I spoke with Dorey on Friday afternoon and confirmed that statement.

The questions for you, BlueOregon readers, are these: What will it take for you to support Wu again in 2012? Are on board already? Are you definitely off the Wu bandwagon? Or are you, like me, still sorting it all out? And if so, what do you need to hear from Wu?

Comments

  • (Show?)

    If he seriously thinks he can run again and win he is still on drugs. Democrats need to find a strong candidate who can keep this district and it is no longer David Wu.

  • (Show?)

    I want to see the alternative. There's a good opportunity here for a primary challenger. Let's see who steps forward.

  • (Show?)

    Mr. Wu would have to become a champion for mental health and/or dual diagnosis public policy. That would be a good start; even if he runs and does not win the election I think that would be the appropriate way to use this situation for the best benefits to his constituents and the country. I wish him well in his recovery.

  • (Show?)

    Full disclosure, if I had my pick I'd take Richard Devlin for Congress any day if there was an open spot or room for a primary challenger. He really is Vulcan smart. Seriously. And why I am on the subject, I for one totally followed what Mr. Wu was trying to say in his now famous Klingon speech. An odd analogy to some, maybe even a little eccentric but if you ever watched Star Trek the message of the speech was kinda obvious IMHO.

  • (Show?)

    Wu has my support if he is the Democratic nominee. But I'm open to look at the primay field first.

  • (Show?)

    Is this the 7th post on this in 8 days? And three of six items on the "Oregon News Headlines" list are Wu related. I understand the interest, but it's devolved to a tabloidish, voyeuristic pursuit. Considering the problems we have, this only rises to this level of attention as a politics-as-spectator-sport distraction.

    Meanwhile, public institutions and the middle class are under attack via both policy and budget deliberations. We'll probably get a plastic bag ban so we can congratulate ourselves while we're being robbed blind in every other way. These subjects may not come with silly pictures, but they should come with at least as much outrage. And at least as much attention.

  • (Show?)

    Sue, I disagree. This story is probably the number one political story this week for Oregon. There are lots of other posts on BO regarding our legislature, the federal budget, the Wisconsin labor fight and other issues. It is not as if this is the only story.

    Part of the reason that this story keeps going is that there has been new information every day on what the press has learned and how Wu has or has not responded. Also, since I live in CD1 this may be of greater interest to me than to you.

  • (Show?)

    Oh please, please, please let David Wu run and be the candidate of the liberals. We'll kick your butts.

    You can,as they say, stick a fork in Wu. He is well, well done.

    • (Show?)

      hubris or hybris (ˈhjuːbrɪs)

      n
      1. pride or arrogance
      2. (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor's ruin

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, Sue, I disagree -- and I agree with John.

    So far, Congressman Wu has failed to be forthcoming about what transpired that caused the entire leadership of his political and congressional operation - most of whom had been with him for more than a decade - to quit en masse.

    We don't know what happened. But what we do know is that whatever happened, it was serious enough for all those people who had defended him, fought for him, and worked for him for a decade to quit in the face of a tough economy, and when 60 Democrats in the Congress lost their seats - throwing hundreds of Democratic congressional staffers into the employment pool.

    And yet, in the face of that, they found the situation so untenable that they'd rather be unemployed.

    (And oh, by the way, this is a blog dedicated to Democratic politics in Oregon. We're going to be a little top-heavy when it comes to a scandal enveloping a Democratic member of Congress. On a day when there was a front-page story, another front-section story, and three columnists all weighing in -- well, this here little blog is going to have a little coverage.)

  • (Show?)

    Sue,

    I agree. My tongue in cheek response to Kari's question about what it would take to support Wu was going to be: another dozen threads. I figured that no one else seemed to be bothered by the apparent fascination with this story.

    We've had six threads on the topic in seven days, devoting more coverage to this story than WWeek or the Oregonian. I don't know what you think is "lots" John, but 6/20=30% while we have a historic showdown between labor and conservative money in Wisconsin, while the Mayor gave his state of the City (meriting zero threads), while another series of historic events are unfolding in North Africa, hell, while Jeff released a Beervana book!

    Meanwhile, we are posting a thread a day in David Wu. Isn't just one or two enough? Are these additional threads really contributing anything?

    • (Show?)

      My assumption, Paul, is that there are many on BlueOregon who feel that having Wu as the nominee in 2012 could well result in Dems losing the seat, and that continuing the posts raises the pressure on the Party to find other candidates to run and to increase pressure on Wu to step down.

    • (Show?)

      If 70% of this week is on other topics that is pretty good in my eyes. Moreover, some of the topics you mention like Libya have only tenuous links to Oregon Democratic issues, the purpose of B.O. I read about that on national sites. On the other hand I would like to hear more about Jeff's book.

    • (Show?)

      We've had six threads on the topic in seven days, devoting more coverage to this story than WWeek or the Oregonian

      Did you even look at the Sunday Oregonian? They had more coverage IN ONE DAY than we've had all week -- a front page story, a front section story, and three columns. In one day!

      This is a big story. And it's not like we've got a quota of posts that we have to be careful to conserve.

      And one more thing: YOU'RE A CONTRIBUTOR. If you want a post about the State of the City, write one.

  • (Show?)

    OK, so now we have another interview with the Congressman where he adds more information that he did not bother to tell the other reporters; his problems were reactions to prescribed drugs. And Susan and Paul this is why the story keeps on going.

    David violated all the basic rules of public scandal. Get it all out upfront and don't drag it out. Frankly, this might have generated more sympathy if he had done it several weeks ago. Now it just keeps the story going.

    • (Show?)

      Exactly. Every one of these posts has contained new news. I don't have any idea why, but Congressman Wu seems to insist on drip-drip-dripping the story.

connect with blueoregon