Fine. Can we put this story to bed now and move on to the important things? Like governing, maybe?

Our team is finally, finally in power at every level of government, and we have a chance to show that we can work together and make America, Oregon, and our individual counties and cities better places. Are we going to do that, or are we going to form circular firing squads and ignore our big chance until it gets bored and leaves?

Admiral, you make a great point. Progressives don't usually enjoy eating their own, but never seem bothered by it when there are no more righties to dine on.

He's reading a teleprompter?

I didn't know Portland owned a teleprompter. Maybe his staff just wrote it all on big poster cards.

OK. Shows the level of reality testing we're dealing with here.

Nothing says dignity quite like a city commissioner making new new "friends with beneifts" by making out in the mens room at city hall.

Portland, Too Hip for Standards.

He acknowledged his wrongdoing and apologized. Let's get back to work on fixing the economic mess, and stop the arguing over a private matter.

Lets move on we got work to do! if you want to keep talking about this....find a chat room.... Keep your homophobia there.... How bout some standards "Richard" for yourself.

Lets move on we got work to do! if you want to keep talking about this....find a chat room.... Keep your homophobia there.... How bout some standards "Richard" for yourself.

That's right, "david": Sam Adams, who did not hide his sexuality, was elected with nearly 60% of the vote, and NOW opposing him is proof of homophobia? Go peddle your nonsense and identity politics elsewhere.

Is it a "private matter" when a "public official" makes out with a 17yr old (ie. minor) in the bathroom of Portland's City Hall?

By the way, something odd about the title of this posting: "Sam's apology". If we were dealing with, say, the latest scandal involving that creepy wingnut evangelist Ted Haggard, would Blue Oregon ever publish something titled "Ted's apology"?

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm uninterested in being on a faux intimate first-name basis with the Mayor of Portland. I am, however, keenly interested in what the mayor does and whether he honors the trust placed in him by the voters.

Thank you, Mayor Adams for having the courage to stand up to the politics of character assassination.

My gorge rose when on the first day of the reinstallation of a Democratic federal administration that Portland mass media immediately dove into a feeding frenzy over this, to the near exclusion of attention to the premier political event of the nascent century. All that was missing was stained clothing. Dam you all!

Mr. Schuman--you're not the first person to object to my ironic sense, so I'll accept your criticism and apologize to you. But I stand by my objection to identity politics, which I consider to be corrosive of the overall body politic. The Democratic Party spent 30+ years tearing itself apart on account of identity politics, and has only recently managed to start putting itself back together, in no small part owing to the example set by the man who is now President of the United States.

Roy McAvoy,

The only point "Admiral" makes is that conservatives just don't get it. "Turn on their own" is proof on that. Conservatives see politics and government as a team sport. You can't have respect for something you hate. Progressives see government as something more inline with business...it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with us, if you break the rules and/or abuse the trust, you are held accountable. To varying degrees based upon the severity of the problem.

Personal problems that do not have a serious or direct effect on public policy are less severe problems, embezzling money, backroom dealing, and other things that directly have an effect on policy are big problems. The reason progressives care so much is that they rely on government to get things done, and when it fails them, they have to hold it accountable so they can try and fix it. That is why progressives want so badly to see Bush and his cronies get convicted, because if he walks away clean, the problems he caused will definitely come back to bite us again someday. The Republicans wanted Clinton impeached because it meant an overtime win for them, not because he did anything by getting a bj that directly had an effect on their life.

David asked, "How bout some standards "Richard" for yourself"???

Huh?

Ed's is the funniest yet. I was wondering last week why no one had played this farce.

"Thank you, Mayor Adams for having the courage to stand up to the politics of character assassination."

What character?

What would make it a public matter?

If the Attorney General's investigation finds cause to believe a law was broken.

Mayor Adams has more strength of character than those sniping from the gutter. This is the Cro-Magnon self-righteous posturing of those holding onto the Middle Ages, trying pull us down to their level.

Ed, I thought about your earlier nonsense.

This has really been character suicide by Adams.

But you now seem to think Adams is exhibiting courage and strength of character?

Wow. For some reason I see it more "Cro-Magnon"--like where Adams is merely placing himself and his career ahead of everything else. Just as he placed he own personal sexual satisfaction ahead of good judgement and honesty.

Obviously you have also concluded that genuine morals, standards and class are long outdated, obsolete and useless.

How Portland weird of you.

Just amazing that Truth and Integrity are not important to progressives. I consider myself uber-liberal, but when a politician proves to be a lying, manipulative weasel they have lost all credibility. C'mon people!

I could give you a lot of inside stink on Adams self-serving, devil be damned crap, but I think his actions speak for themselves.

And let's be honest about another thing, Mr. Adams had absolutely no intent on resigning- so we have yet another lie. I can almost assure you that the weekend was spent making deals with the Portland Ruling class.

Have progressives lost the ability to smell a rat?

Progressives see government as something more inline with business...it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with us, if you break the rules and/or abuse the trust, you are held accountable.

Not sure I agree with this as a general principle, though it may prevail in more local circumstances. I think about the treatment of Trent Lott's dopey racial statements by Republicans (harsh) versus Democrats of Robert Byrds (indulgent); or Duke Cunningham versus William Jefferson. Can't remember much outrage about Sandy Berger purloining secret documents. The Valerie Plame matter also reflected a certain flexibility in Democratic attitudes about the CIA. I was really struck about the latter case when an old Uruguayan friend of mine expressed outrage at the supposed "outing." I can tell you that I would have expected hell to freeze over before he'd be protective of a CIA agent!

Another comment: The point (by another poster) about there being something improper using Adams' first name is silly. At an official newspaper site, certainly. But at BlueOregon?

Yes I adjudge Mayor Adams as having strength of character in standing up to the knee-jerk brain-dead howls for resignation from self-appointed religious arbitors of personal behavior of government officials. Gossip mongers must not interfere in the running of state. Get over yourself Richard.

The Oregonian nails it this morning: "Only a political culture consumed by appearances and moved by empty symbolism, instead of substance, could have reached [the] conclusion [that Adams' political and governmental skills were too essential for the city to lose]. A city that cannot even imagine better leadership than this is in deep trouble."

Boy, Ed you sure do have a biased imagination. I suppose it's safe to assume that some of the Adams critics to are "knee jerk, brain dead, self appointed religious arbiters of personal behavior", but do you know any? Or what proportion of the critics are of that low caliber? What about all of the other people? Better yet, what is your assessment of the many informed progressives who have called for his resignation? For instance Marc Abrams?

Do you have some dismissing and disqualifying labels for them as well? Are they all just gossip mongers?

Is it still strength of character Adams is using to give everyone else the middle finger?

As for your "get over yourself Richard" bit?

Hmm? How does that apply to anything? What does it mean?

kissing a 17 year old in the bathroom is illegal. Sex Abuse III, ORS 163.415.

insert generic comment about the importance of moving on

I received the "I will work harder than I have ever worked" email today. I replied that we were still waiting for the garbage can he promised to provide for the Peace Memorial Park last year. I hope he does work harder since I sure would like that garbage can.

P.S. He signed the email "Sam", not Mayor Sam Adams, so I guess I can call him Sam.

This just in...

Sam Adams has hired a new intern, Ben Dover. While his duties were not spelled out, Ben is expected to hold various positions under the Mayor.

-Aw come on people, let´s have a little fun with this!

TJ-

Matt Davis posted the statue and some examples of case law regarding what "sexual contact" is on the Portland Mercury blog yesterday...very interesting and possible dangerous for Sam.

Click here to see the post

From the Oregon Revised Statutes:

163.415 Sexual abuse in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the third degree if the person subjects another person to sexual contact and: (a) The victim does not consent to the sexual contact; or (b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of being under 18 years of age. (2) Sexual abuse in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor 163.305 Definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, unless the context requires otherwise: (6) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person or causing such person to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.

The question, then, is whether Breedlove's intimate parts were touched for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire. And the legal question, too, is whether Breedlove's lips count under the definition of "intimate parts," never mind his other parts. Read the cases below when considering what limited amount of contact with "intimate parts" can get you charged with a crime. Someone will eventually ask Beau Breedlove whether he regards his lips as "intimate parts" and Mr. Adams' attorney will certainly be earning his fee if a DA wants to charge him with a crime. Clearly these cases deal with a higher level crime (sexual abuse I) which is a different statute than the one Adams is worried about, but it is in the same section and the definition of "intimate parts" would be the same. And then you have to look at the case law to determine what "intimate parts" are. The following is from State v. MEYROVICH, in 2005, which found the subject's neck to be intimate:

The only question presented in defendant's first assignment of error, therefore, is whether the victim's neck qualifies as an "intimate part" so as to establish the element of "sexual contact." In analyzing that question, we take guidance from State v. Woodley, 306 Or 458, 760 P2d 884 (1988). In that case, to save the statute from fatal vagueness, the court devised a two-step analysis for determining whether, in any particular situation, a body part is to be regarded as "intimate":

"First, because the object of the statute is to protect persons from unwanted intimacies, the part must be regarded as 'intimate' by the person touched. This is a subjective test.

"Second, if an accused touched this part knowing that the touched person regarded it as intimate and did not consent, the accused violates the statute if the requisite sexual purpose is proved. If the accused, regardless of his or her private purpose, did not know that the part was 'intimate' to the person touched, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused should have recognized it to be an 'intimate part.' The latter is an objective test.

"In other words, the part must be subjectively intimate to the person touched, and either known by the accused to be so or to be an area of the anatomy that would be objectively known to be intimate by any reasonable person. A court may decide that no reasonable jury could find a particular part of the body to be objectively 'intimate,' but the court may not, in a criminal case, instruct the jury that any part is objectively 'intimate[.]'

"This view of the statute does not eliminate all potential for divergent decisions; on the other hand, it allows for individual, cultural, or generational differences in what areas are deemed intimate."

Id. at 463. In the present case, undisputed evidence supports the conclusion that the subjective element of the test was met; the victim testified that she regarded defendant's actions in putting his mouth on her neck as touching an intimate part. The question therefore resolves to whether defendant knew or should have known that she regarded her neck as an intimate part in the circumstances. The court properly instructed the jury, telling them,

"In order to find that a body part is intimate, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the victim] regarded the part touched as intimate and either: One, the defendant knew that [the victim] regarded that part as intimate; or two, any reasonable person would know that the part touched is intimate."

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. We must accept that finding unless we "decide that no reasonable jury could find a particular part of the body [here, the neck] to be objectively 'intimate.'" Id. at 463.

Or, if you want to see another interesting application of the "intimate parts" language in the sex abuse statutes, check out State v. Rodriguez in which a poor 25 y.o. youth counselor got a mandatory prison sentence for hugging a kid (in a way so her breasts touched the 13 y.o. victim). She is still in prison. On February 14, 2005, a staff member named Villalobos saw defendant and the victim in the game room at the club. There were approximately 30 to 50 youths and at least one other staff member in the room. The victim, who had since turned 13, was sitting on a chair. Defendant, who had since turned 25, was standing behind him, caressing his face and pulling his head back; the back of his head was pressed against her breasts. Villalobos crossed the room and pointed defendant and the victim out to Malunay, another staff member, who had his back to them. Malunay turned and saw defendant run her hands along the victim's face and through his hair while the back of his head was against her breasts. The contact lasted approximately one minute. Villalobos later reported the incident to his supervisor, and the police were notified. Defendant was eventually charged with first-degree sexual abuse based on the incident.

I would like to add a few elements that I believe have been missing from this and other Adams discussions on BlueOregon:

1. The Mayor has admitted coaching Mr. Breedlove to lie, and employing his political consultant to assist in the cover-up, as well as the slander of a prospective political opponent. This constitutes fraud.

2. The Attorney General will almost certainly look into this fraud element, and I strongly suspect it runs afoul of election law. This is Kroeger's first big assignment, and the state will immediately get to see whether he is, in fact, a different kind of politician or more of the same.

3. The reason the Mayor didn't resign is because he has no other options. His finances have long been precarious, and we're in the middle of a deep recession. There is nowhere else for him to go, so he is staying and fighting. Not a bad gamble (for him), really, as he has demonstrated exceptional resiliency in the past when on the ropes. I'm betting he will continue to use his sizable list of loyal followers to manufacture grass top support and outlast the Oregonian and the threat of recall IF Kroeger takes a pass on his actions.

4. And finally, pure opinion. This has nothing to do with the Mayor being gay. Nothing. Any teacher caught doing this would be fired, regardless of sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, would any school in Portland now allow the Mayor to stand in its halls to promote a policy initiative? Many parents would be up in arms if they did. Any police officer who pulled this stunt would be fired. The AG will determine if the conduct with the boy was illegal, but the coverup and never-ending lies are simply inexcusable. While the use of the gay card is a pretty good play from Sam, in fact the only play, it's pretty sad for the rest of us. Sam is not the victim - Portland is. And I am one of many who has given time and money to promote equal rights in our state for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities. The Mayor has now thoroughly smudged the line between a righteous cause and a selfish one.

How many of the Mayor's defenders would be leaping to the same defense of a similarly-charged Republican official? Unlike some of the trolls on this and other posts, I am a lifelong liberal, and I cannot understand how we have so quickly adopted from the former ruling party the same double standards and their ability to rationalize in the face of clear wrong. And with a straight face.

"rather than the substantive impacts on the City."

Does it matter? Fritz is afraid of Adams and Saltzman thinks he can't go to the bathroom without Sam's permission. He'd get his way anyways.

I'd say your ability to blog away on taxpayer time, TorridJoe, is more indicative of how screwed up CoP is since we have more employees than work.

tom t. writes: "Unlike some of the trolls on this and other posts, I am a lifelong liberal, and I cannot understand how we have so quickly adopted from the former ruling party the same double standards and their ability to rationalize in the face of clear wrong." ===

Bullshit tom!

If you were a TRUE 'lifelong liberal' you would not only understand the double standard, but utilize it to maximum advantage like the other lifelong liberals.

But you almost convinced me you were not a 'concern troll', very convincing you are. Kudos to you.

The O:

Only a political culture consumed by appearances and moved by empty symbolism, instead of substance, could have reached that conclusion. A city that cannot even imagine better leadership than this is in deep trouble.

This was a moment when Portland's civic community needed to see clearly the difference between right and wrong but failed to do so.

Telling the truth is right. Lying, then conducting a political campaign that depended entirely on maintaining and expanding the lie is wrong. Adams' perceived competence doesn't change that reality.

We don't think that sex between consenting adults generally is a fit topic for public discussion, even if one of them is a politician. That's not a universal opinion, of course, which is why Adams decided to lie. He didn't think voters would believe his teenage friend was of legal age when they had sex.

Whether he was or he wasn't is now the subject of an attorney general's investigation. It may also be one topic of a recall effort this summer. No doubt many Portlanders would prefer to put this behind them and wish we all could just take Adams at his word.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.

"Are your political views backed by reason? If you're a staunch Republican or Democrat, they're probably not. Areas of the brain associated with reason are hardly active when dedicated partisans explain away contradictory statements made by their preferred candidates, according to brain imaging research. Instead, the areas active in these situations are those associated with emotion and conflict resolution, says Drew Western, a psychology researcher at Emory University who collected data for the study during the 2004 campaign between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, shown here. Western used functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to see what areas of dedicated partisans' brains lit up when confronted with their candidates' contradictory statements."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28814417/?pg=2#Tech_BrainScience

I wonder if we can find anyone on this thread who might fit this description?

I know I can.

There is abundant support for resignation in the progressive community. Gay, straight and life long liberals.

Posted by: Marc Abrams | Jan 20, 2009 9:30:12 PM I agree with those who say consensual sex between legal adults is none of our business. And that wa s all Sam had to say. But he did not say that. He chose to lie. Repeatedly. I listened to his interview in 2007 on KEX this afternoon. It was planful, deliberate, and showed disrespect for voters and the news media. It showed more than bad judgment, it showed a willingness to let Bob Bal l's reputation be tarnished as a liar when Bob, we now know, told the truth. He convinced his partner to lie to the media as well. It isn't the crime -- because there was no "crime" here, but it was the cover up. To those who feel a lie is justified because they feel the question should not have been asked, would you have extended the same option to Bob Packwood? I supported Sam in this past election. I though he would be a good mayor, maybe even a great one. But he was willing to lie to obtain office, and willing to let the reputation and perhaps the political career of another be torched in the process. It's not okay. His judgment as to a partner -- one only by the barest legal technicality an "adult" and less than half his age -- might not have affected my vote or it might have. I honestly can't tell in retrospect. But his judgement in not trusting me, not trusting you, not trusting Portland with the information to make their decisions as infomed voters and therefore justifying systematic lying DOES affect my vote. It no longer belongs to Sam. Sam, at the very least, resign and see if he voters will re-elect you with all the facts20in front of them. Posted by: Marc Abrams | Jan 21, 2009 7:36:19 PM I agree with those who say the public and the press have no right to ask Sam Adams – or any candidate or officeholder – about their legal and consensual sex life. But I disagree with those who then believe that an inappropriate question is a justification for lying. It is not. It is a justification to say “none of your business,” or “I’m not going to answer that,” or, in this case, “I have not committed any illegal sexual act and you need know nothing more.” Sam Adams made none of these statements. He lied. Repeatedly. If you listen to his interview on KEX with Mark and Dave from 2007, he lies in about half a dozen different ways. He then undertook a cover up, urging Breedlove to lie and even sending him to a coach for the purpose. He then, on his own and through others, including fellow Commissioner Randy Leonard, caused Bob Ball’s reputation to be severely tarnished for what we now know was truth-telling. Who knows how this election would have turned out had Sam responded in any of the ways above. It ’s not the sex. It’s that Sam lied to the media, to the voters, and to you and me. He did not have faith that the voters would reach his desired conclusion. He subverted the electoral process. At that point, it is no longer about the sex, it’s about fundamental honesty and the relation of the governed to the governing. It’s about not knowing when Sam is telling the truth or when he’s reached another self-justification. Honestly, would we tolerate this in a Republican? I doubt it. If not, then our standards should be the same. I supported Sam for Mayor. I think he could have been a good, maybe a great mayor. But if fundamentally we cannot count on him telling the truth when it matters most to him, he should not continue in office.

Those of you who are parents might productively consider what you would think if one of your kids smashed a neighbor's window with a baseball, say, then not only lied about it but also coached other kids who witnessed the incident to lie about it as well ("You've got to lie about this for me, Billy, or Mom and Dad won't let me run for class president.") Think about what you would say to those kids when the truth came out. Think about how your neighbor would feel when the truth came out.

This has become nothing more than a referendum on is it enough to say the right things or can we tie those statements to an expectation of behavior. Get real people. Almost everyone debating this voted for Sam. We don't need your educating us on his promise. That's why we're pissed.

Since 1980 society has been producing a generation that is not rewarded for results but for participation. Relentlessly coupling behavior and results and assessing that is seen by that generation as aggressive and rude. The workplace is beginning to change to look like our locked-down schools. I see this as a huge cultural debate. One side says, he's a great guy, he has the right vision and he showed up for the job. If he doesn't break the law, any asking him to stand down is a personal attack.

The other camp has absolute behavioral standards- always aggressive and an affront to the first camp- and is going to judge Sam on his performance. The first camp would have issues with any judgment being made, short of who you cast your ballot for next time. Some in the second camp would say this is how society devalues the individual, using the seductive tact that we're actually expecting less of you, being more understanding. Sam has convinced me of one thing. The intial "what could those two have in common to base a real relationship on" has been satisfied, in my mind. Sam may be 40 something but he thinks just like a Reagan boomer. The only difference between Sam and Vera is character, but it's a big difference. Another sad, sad, lowlight. Never had one bad word to say about Vera, until now. Can there be any doubt she counseled him to stay on, and could have been the one person to say, "time to go"?

Bottom line, I'm saying that anyone that criticizes Sam and calls for resignation is going to find he gets support from all those Reagan boomers that empathize with his position. To that group, we simply cannot say, "it is only about the lie". That dates us. Thier society has accepted that it's never "only about the lie". Anyone that relentlessly says, "but why did you say this, it's a lie", is a "language Nazi". Get over it; move on.

They're right. The time to fight this battle was with them, with their parents, not with the guy they helped us elect to be Mayor.

"Kissing is explicitly not a sexual act." torridjoe

It's a pretty good guess that Adams and Breedlove's kind of kissing wasn't an affectionate, non-sexual, type of kissing. Perhaps not illegal by Oregon statutes...I haven't checked them...but most likely sexual.

Honestly, "Lolita"??? "Breedlove"???? WTF is going on here? Are we all just getting "Punked"? Where's the hidden camera? I find I can no longer take any of this seriously.

I just had to know, so I did some digging. Here's the results of my quickie research.

The family are originally from Lafayette, IN, and moved to San Diego in 1949. About 1988 his parents moved to Oregon, around the time he was born. He changed his name to Beau around 2000. I have some circumstantial data that his real name is Virgil, Jr. I think Kim Breedlove of Breedlove Guitars in Bend is his aunt. He was quite well developed at a young age. I also believe he is the youngest of three kids (aged 23, 22, 21), of Lorreta J, currently resident in Salem. The guy I think is his father also lives in Salem. The oldest child lives in Portland, and I believe she is gay as well. She's well represented on Facebook (Jessica), as is Beau. There is also a rumor that he would only consent to the photo in the Oregonian if it included the dog. Sam found out that he was 17 and gay at the same time (very hard to believe if you've seen him), and Sam was the pursued. At the time his poor judgment was attributed to his being flattered.

That's a good place to start some real research from; take it all with a grain of salt. I only spent an hour on it.

Adams has brought upon himself the stigma of a pedophile. He has no credibility. He should put his own ambitions aside and resign!

Every person using the word "pedophilia" about Adams is showing how much of a deliberate smear campaign is going on, alongside the legitimate concerns.

Pedophilia, per the American Psychological Association diagnostics, is sexual attraction to pre-pubsescent children. It is overwhelmingly a problem for all the straight fathers out there who act out on their fantasies of raping their young and infant daughters. Look it up.

Beau Breedlove was not pre-pubescent. He was a horny, intelligent 18 year old, who knew what he wanted, in a nation where the majority of states set the age of sexual consent at 16 years of age.

I know there are a lot of people genuinely concerned about Sam Adams credibility. Just remember, if you dive into pushing a recall though, despite all apologies and investigation results over a possible but unlikely age of consent violation, you're working alongside bigots (and idiots) pushing a smear campaign.

Lie down with dogs ... get up with fleas.

John, regarding age of consent table you linked to . . . wow that was pretty interesting; indeed the age of consent here and around the world is primarily below 18. Geez Arkansas is 14.

I don't think Adams should step down. I don't think Breedlove did anything he didn't want to do. Yes it was poor judgement on Adams part. And yes it was not right that he lied, asked Breedlove to do the same, but it's about his sex life and he's homosexual in a society that until fairly recently found this behavior abhorrent.

I do think the media coverage is stupid ... like a close up of the bathroom door at city hall, what? I listened to WW rep on NPR talking about the 2 going out to dinner and what might of happened afterwards; he didn't know of course but by asking the question he suggested the idea that perhaps they had sex. WW circulation must be down.

John 8:7 sez:

"Just remember, if you dive into pushing a recall though, despite all apologies and investigation results over a possible but unlikely age of consent violation, you're working alongside bigots (and idiots) pushing a smear campaign."

Please read, and re-read, what Zarathustra wrote in his commentary just up the thread, about the difference between judging people by participation and vision and judging them by actual performance. Then reflect a bit on the Democratic presidential campaign between Obama and Clinton. Precisely the same dichotomy was present there, between Obama supporters who focussed on the man's vision and were drawn into participating in it, and the Clinton supporters who felt that her actual performance made her the better candidate.

And please lay off the guilt by association rigamarole.

Not being a Christian, practicing or otherwise, I had to look up the biblical allusion of your pseudonym:

"Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

With all due respect, that's simply not the point. Christ was talking about compassion, and that's a good thing; we should all cultivate compassion. But Christ wasn't saying "behavior has no consequences".

SAMBLA will be a joke for the rest of his term. Whenever he talks about his stimulus package people will wink and chuckle. When he talks about mentoring interns people will laugh out loud. When he talks about building a new sports stadium people will wonder if it is because he wants a larger selection of young males to choose from. Convention hotel, place to seduce boys. Everything he does from now on will be greated with laughter. The guy made himself a joke and we'll all laugh at him for the next several years.

If Sam thinks that he can outlast this disgusting act of sheer self-serving cover your assness (most of the time), then watch out dude.

You've made a lot of enemies in your nasty bitter climb to the top.

Get ready for some good old-fashioned truth about the real Sam Adams- the ultimate power at all costs - don't worry about who you have to walk over - which way is the wind blowing - who do I have to suck up to - devil in a two-piece con artist.

Speaking of guilt by association again, I'm tired of getting lumped together with the jerks like "andy" and their sexual innuendo and double entendres.

"There is also a rumor that he would only consent to the photo in the Oregonian if it included the dog. Sam found out that he was 17 and gay at the same time (very hard to believe if you've seen him), and Sam was the pursued." JD

It's not unusual for people to be or appear mature at a young age, or for a young person to pursue those older than they are. That's not an excuse for Adams to do what he did. Didn't something like this happen to Roman Polanski? It wasn't a smart choice for him to indulge either.

"Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

With all due respect, that's simply not the point. Christ was talking about compassion, and that's a good thing; we should all cultivate compassion. But Christ wasn't saying "behavior has no consequences".

And this little old lady came out of the crowd, picked up a humongous boulder and dropped it on her. And Jesus said, "Mother, somes times you really piss me off".

(For non-catholics: Pope Pius IX decreed ex cathedra that Mary was conceived without original sin.)

63.415 Sexual Abuse in Third Degree Any person who engages in sexual contact with any person under 18 and where defendant is 3+ years older than victim. Reasonable mistake as to age is a defense where victim is 16+. (Class A Misdemeanor.

If this were Sam the coach making out with a high school student in a public toilet instead of Sam the mayor, the coach would probably be charged and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Yes, people have been prosecuted for "making out" with minors. Sexual penetration would be subject to more charges.

The Mayor won't be arrested. The mayor won't be charged. Sam Adams lied and asked others to lie about his conduct. At a minimum, it showed a severe lack of character or ethics.

Portland can decide for itself if they want to keep this paragon of virtue as their mayor. He's made Portland into a joke around the world. A friend even read about it in the Russian papers. Thanks for making Portland infamous, Mayor Sam Adams.

And the circus continues. If you signed the notwithsam internet petition, you just received the following email:

Tomorrow morning, at 8:30, we will have the opportunity to ask Sam Adams some questions. PLEASE join us. E-mail me if you have any additional questions, and forward this message to everyone that cares.

[email protected]

Trust Starts With Truth: Ask Mayor Adams your questions on Wednesday 1/28/2009

Dear Portlanders,

The basis on which this nation, state, and city was founded include the right to ask your elected leaders for the truth. Help the mayor earn the city’s trust by rising to his own standards.

You have the right to ask the elected leader of your city questions, and he has the duty to answer. Whether you wish to support silently, or you wish to ask questions (as allowed by the Council), we encourage you to attend.

If you have never been to a City Council meeting, please experience being an active citizen, and consider ushering in the President’s “New Era of Responsibility” by simply attending. We do encourage you to speak.

Please join your fellow Portlanders, for an open invitation rally at the City Council Meeting.

We will meet at the City Hall rotunda (at the 4th avenue entrance) underneath the City Council Chambers. 1221 SW 4th Ave (click here for a map), at 8:30 AM Wednesday, January 28th. Anyone who wishes to speak during the council meeting may sign up at that time.

Statement of Organization: NotWithSam.com

We are a volunteer grass roots organization all our affiliations are accidental, and involve coffee

Uh-huh. You're also a Sho D. operative, Adam Berg. I might want to ask if BB's real name is Virgil Breedlove, Jr, tho.

Hey, look at this way. If he does walk, he can get a job as a stand-in for Bill Murray in Caddyshack.

He really needs to fix the sound in the bunker if he is going to do more of these deep-cover communiques.

Regardless of your political persuasion, isn't this getting a little wierd, if not dysfunctional? I mean the whole "Everybody ignore the elephant in the room" approach?

I love it, per "JD Clampit", now some hastily thrown together group wanting Adams' resignation is supposed to be a front for Sho Dozono. Folks, in the last mayoral election BOTH major candidates were beholden to big business interests. Both also had major ethical problems; the difference was that Dozono's were either already known or came out during the campaign, but Adams' were conveniently suppressed and are only coming out now.

Damn, I don't know why I said that. It obviously makes me a homophobe.

I love it, per "JD Clampit", now some hastily thrown together group wanting Adams' resignation is supposed to be a front for Sho Dozono. Folks, in the last mayoral election BOTH major candidates were beholden to big business interests. Both also had major ethical problems; the difference was that Dozono's were either already known or came out during the campaign, but Adams' were conveniently suppressed and are only coming out now.

Damn, I don't know why I said that. It obviously makes me a homophobe.

Technically, Mayor Adams attraction to Mr. Breedlove doesn't constitute pedophilia, though it may constitute pederasty in the modern sense of the word. Nor does this coupling demonstrate the Mayor doesn't have pedophilic desires (he may be attracted to prepubescent boys, but not act on those desires out of fear or shame). Just because he entered into a sexual liasion with an 18 year old doesn't mean he hasn't had pursued sex with minors in the past.

Certainly, it would appear Beau's youthfulness, or liminal status (meaning on the threshold of the age of consent), was a motivating factor to the 42 year old (then) Commissioner Adams. Knowing that a sexual liasion with an 18 year old could damage his reputation may also have been a motivating factor: many people are excited by the risk of "getting caught" when they are violating a taboo.

There is little doubt that Commissioner Adams was not planning a long term relationship with Mr. Breedlove if he denied the true nature of the relationship from the beginning. In light of the the disparities in their life experience, their social and economic status, and the the resultant imbalance of power, it is likely that Sam was the dominant/aggressor in this coupling and was primarily interested in making Beau squeal like a piggy.

But I'm not a psychologist.

It's Wednesday, folks, and this sordid tale just took another turn for the worse.

Nice. Also nice to see the Adams story making the Jay Leno monologue. This isn't about Adams' integrity any more. It's about whether the city of Portland wants to sacrifice its own sense of integrity. If Adams really wants to serve the people and the city, he should step down.

Nice. Also nice to see the Adams story making the Jay Leno monologue. This isn't about Adams' integrity any more. It's about whether the city of Portland wants to sacrifice its own sense of integrity. If Adams really wants to serve the people and the city, he should step down.

1) There are different levels of "lies". If someone with a gun comes to your door and asks if your room mate is in, you're likely to lie if you think it prudent. Not telling a reporter the whole truth about a sexual encounter with a consenting adult is different than making the same denial about a 17 year old or an 11 year old. 2) Mayor Adams did not lie to get elected. He did not answer the all reports questions truthfully so that it would be possible for Portland to have an honest and fair, issue-based mayoral campaign. Big difference. The media circus of the last weeks has made it abundantly clear that Adams made the only possible choice with his denial last summer if he really intended to remain a viable candidate. 3) This anti-Adams campaign has far more to do with local politcal power struggles and the Oregonian's (and other corporate media's) sense of entitlement to set the terms of debate in Portland politics than it has to do with sex or lies.

I'm sure there are lots of gays in their 40s who are in monogamous, non-promiscuous relationships, who are not lurking after every fresh piece of teen-age meat to come along. Unfortunately, the honourable mayor and now John Vezina, seem to be reinforcing the stereotype that the opposite is true.

I work alongside bigots and idiots every day. I also stand in line with them at the coffee shop. I use my turn signal to let them know when I'm changing lanes. Unless you're reading blog comments, most of the time it is impossible to distinguish the bigots and the idiots from the enlightened geniuses because we're all playing by the same rules.

Adams needs to resign. That there are bigots and idiots in the world is true and also completely immaterial.

Posted by: Jimbo46 | Jan 28, 2009 1:48:45 PM

1) There are different levels of "lies".

Only as a theoretical construct. People don't shift gears well and inertia reigns. People either lie or they don't. How many times have you asked someone something that really didn't need 100% honesty- like "does this make me look fat"- and you get an honest answer because the person doesn't lie? And you're rightly pissed, because it wouldn't have hurt anything to lie- would have helped, maybe- but people don't judge the effect and then decide if they're going to lie. Well, liars do, but honest people don't. When an honest person lies, it has a certain involuntary or defensive reflex feel to it. Definitely not a calculated feel. If it feels calculated, you are a liar. Judging "levels of lies" is a calculation.

This is why community policing works. People don't decide to go rob a bank out of the blue. People are lazy, predictable creatures. They tend to do in any given situation what they tend to do in any other situation, regardless of the meaning it would have it they stopped to reflect on it.

Put another way, your statement sounds like, "I need a certain level of lies. They work." Would I be totally off if I guessed you were born between 1975 and 1993?

"The harsh criticism of Adams comes a day after Wade Nkrumah, Adams' spokesman, quit his job. Nkrumah, 48, a former reporter for The Oregonian, has declined to comment on his reasons for leaving but said it was voluntary. He said he has no new job lined up."

Good luck Mr. Nkurmah. If only your ex-boss had half as much integrity and honor as you.

Adams lied because he wanted to avoid arrest. According to Beau's statement, they had sexual contact in the form of kissing and embracing when the intern was 17. If Adams weren't the mayor, he'd be in jail and facing charges.

They arrested two 8-year-olds on felony sexual assault in Yamhill County for swatting girls on the fanny. Prosecutors convicted a man of SAIII because a he grabbed a girl's arm and yelled at her after almost running her over when her bike shot out in front of his car.

It's a disgraceful double-standard. Every day there's new reports of how thoroughly corrupt and egocentric Sam Adams is.

How bad can it be before people stop defending him. He had inappropriate contact with a high school intern. He used his office to buy off journalists with government jobs. He resorted to base slander against political opponents. Sam Adams asked this same intern and others to lie for him.

Well said, Lani.

He should resign while he still has two shreds of dignity to rub together.

Posted by: Lani | Jan 28, 2009 8:00:23 PM

Adams lied because he wanted to avoid arrest. According to Beau's statement, they had sexual contact in the form of kissing and embracing when the intern was 17. If Adams weren't the mayor, he'd be in jail and facing charges.

They arrested two 8-year-olds on felony sexual assault in Yamhill County for swatting girls on the fanny. Prosecutors convicted a man of SAIII because a he grabbed a girl's arm and yelled at her after almost running her over when her bike shot out in front of his car.

It's a disgraceful double-standard. Every day there's new reports of how thoroughly corrupt and egocentric Sam Adams is.

While I agree with the conclusion and the spirit that abhors elitism, shouldn't we take a moment to address the gross injustice being done in those other cases? Even if you're a total rat-monger and child-worshiper, can anyone fail to realize that the those prosecutions make their children less safe? Give fuel to Sam's supporters? Turn everything into being about sex? Who has the problems with kids and sex?

Sam is corrupt and egocentric. We don't have to stick a jack-boot on someone else's neck to make that point. And if you like doing that sort of thing, Sam is dividends on your investment. This isn't about sex, remember?

Sam is corrupt and egocentric. We don't have to stick a jack-boot on someone else's neck to make that point. And if you like doing that sort of thing, Sam is dividends on your investment. This isn't about sex, remember?

This is exactly why the "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" argument has its appeal, Zarathustra. You and I are appalled with Adams' behavior, especially his lies and his bogus "it's all about my sexual identity" argument, and so, I think, are a lot of people. But every time the focus turns to the prurient interest of the scandal, and the puritanical start frothing at the mouth, we get pressured to fall in line with Adams' supporters lest we find ourselves aligned with bigots.

It's about a corrupt politician abusing his power.

It's also about the abuse of power by the Multnomah County prosecutor's office with their double standard in protecting their friends while vigorously destroying the lives of others.

Sam Adams is a public disgrace and I'm amazed at the people who think he should be above the law.

Sam Adams may be a lowlife but he's our lowlife. That appears to be the substance of people's defense for the Mayor's actions. That or dismissing anyone who disagrees as homophobes, bigots, or puritans.

The District Attorney's office will happily prosecute others but the law doesn't apply under their "family and friends" plan.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/video/index.ssf?LC_41RICH105 Here's video of former Multnomah County prosecutor Randy Ray Richardson slugging his girlfriend, Kristi Kephar and knocking her to the ground in front of at least two witnesses. No arrests were made nor any charges filed.

A Portland area teacher was falsely accused of "making out" with a high school student in an empty classroom. Fox New broadcast a picture of his home and his picture, police questioned him and it all turned out to be an angry student getting back at a teacher who gave her a bad grade.

A 15-year-old in our neighborhood was prosecuted under the sexual contact laws, convicted as an adult, despite no rights to retain counsel (his mother waived all rights for him and kept telling him to "tell the truth"), now he's disappeared after violating probation.

Down the street, a man is spending 7 years in federal prison for "making out" with his teen minor stepdaughter. No sexual penetration was involved.

Explain to me how Sam Adams gets a pass on the "sexual contact" laws with a minor when 15-year-olds and others are sent to prison? Is that fair, is that just or another example of how anyone who isn't politically connected can expect to be treated by the prosecutor's office?

Zarathustra: "Put another way, your statement sounds like, "I need a certain level of lies. They work." My statement is intended to say I need more substance to an argument than "all lies are equal, and equally evil" and "once a liar, always a liar". Both notions express either lazy or dishonest thinking and are bogus.

"Would I be totally off if I guessed you were born between 1975 and 1993?" Wrong, 1946. How about you?

What a load of typical Amerikan hypocrisy. You care soooo much for the cares and concerns unjustly foisted on an impressionable 17-year old. He couldn't possibly have been in control of the situation, he's 17. In the meantime, whacha doin' for entertainment tonight? Hockey? Basketball? Opera? Blues? Jazz? Baseball? Watching a movie?

Every one of those activities take 13, 14 and 15 year olds and put them under pressure that you couldn't bear, simply so you can have a bit of excitement or some yucks. This is about sex.

"Would I be totally off if I guessed you were born between 1975 and 1993?" Wrong, 1946. How about you?

Actually, the coherent answer would be, "Yes. Were you?" So, I'll continue this "what's my line". Do you work with real estate or in sales?

<hr/>