Underage intern? Check.
Lunches? Check.
Out of office liaisons? Check.
Gay love? Check.
Text messages? Check.
Inappropriate? If you're former Congressman Mark Foley the answer is 'yes.' If you're St. Sam, not so much.
I like Sam Adams very much. Don't like his politics, but he knows that.
But I think it's extraordinary that the Zero, the so called newspaper of record, goes out of its way Tuesday (here) to block for Sam Adams while the City Commissioner mulls over his possible bid for mayor. Well, at least it didn't bury the story like it did for Goldschmidt and Kulongoski here.
The story goes that well connected Pearl District developer (and Portland reserve officer) Bob Ball, had heard that Sam had a 'relationship' with a 17 year old legislative intern whom he'd met while on a lobbying trip to Salem.
It was among the most potentially damaging accusations that could be leveled against a gay politician, particularly one as high profile and ambitious as Adams. And it was coming from another gay man who also was thinking about running for the city's top job.
The problem: The story Ball told about Adams and a 17-year-old legislative intern isn't true, according to both Adams and the young man. Adams acknowledges trying to be a mentor, including exchanging numerous phone calls and text messages with the young man over several months in summer 2005.
Isn't true? Is that the benefit of the doubt that would be given to another politician of a more conservative bent? Should we trust the Zero to get the story straight? What political dog does the Zero have in this fight that it would stake its reputation on that of a politician? In its previous story, the Zero has made it clear that Adams is its choice for mayor. That it bagged on Ball; blaming him for rumor mongering is odd.
Here's what Willamette Week has to say about it. And here's Sam's response to Portlanders today.
Dear Portlander,
As you have probably seen in the media, I have been the target of a nasty
smear by a would-be political opponent. I will not dignify the substance of
this smear by repeating it - if you read the accounts you will see there is
no foundation to it. The reason is simple: it is untrue.
This kind of ugly politicking may be commonplace in other cities and at the
national level, but Portland and Oregon largely has been blessedly free of
it. It saddens me that it has been introduced here, and I have faith that
Portlanders' rejection of it will mean that this incident is an anomaly.
About this attempted smear, here is what I want to say.
I have in the past, and I will in the future, respond to people who reach
out to me for help and advice. This is especially true when it comes to
young people.
Growing up in Newport and Eugene, Oregon I remember when I was a teenager
and I had nobody who I felt I could talk to at a time I desperately needed
someone to give me advice and perspective about coming to terms with being
gay. I came through it. Not everyone does.
Gay youth suicide rates, homelessness and depression are still too high.
And, adequate services have been lacking: Reasons why I co-founded
Portland's Q Center, served on the Boards of Cascade AIDS Project, Basic
Right Oregon and lobbied the state legislature in support of statewide
non-discrimination laws.
I didn't get into public life to allow my instinct to help others to be
snuffed out by fear of sleazy misrepresentations or political manipulation.
I understand the need for good judgment, and I work very hard to keep within
the bounds of propriety -- as I did in this case.
I'm glad that people consider me as a person they could come to for help,
understanding and support. I work at it. And I hope that you do too.
Local programs needing mentors have long waiting lists.
About my political future: this attempted smear will not deter me from
serving Portland in the best way I know how. Soon I will be with sharing
with you my future political plans.
With warm regards,
Sam
8 comments:
"Gay love? Check."
You're absolutely sure of this? No doubt, no questions?
Accusations, yes, but until there's proof, shouldn't he be considered innocent of wrong-doing?
Now, granted, if he did something and there's proof, that's another issue altogether.
"Text messages? Check."
Here's the thing about this vs. the Foley situation: With Foley, there was proof. There were copies of the text messages.
You seem to be condemning Adams without any such equivalent information.
Again, if something comes to light, I'd be more than happy to reconsider.
Until then, it looks like it might POSSIBLY (not definitely, not yet) be a dirty trick.
We have to wait and see.
Worst president ever.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a Republican, iknow. It's up to Monsieur Ball to prove his accusations, and up to the big zero to INVESTIGATE. As for the lefty sam, mentoring minors is what predators do, not mayoral candidates. He's white, but can he jump or dance? Time will tell.
Accusations, yes, but until there's proof, shouldn't he be considered innocent of wrong-doing?
That concept is only for Democrats.
Earl Blumenauer
Public officials are open to criticisms that private citizens are not. In view of the damage being done to Adam's candidacy, the clearest response is simply for him and the young lad to take rigorous lie detector examinations. Unpleasant no doubt, but perhaps not as unpleasant as losing the mayoral race for Adams would be.
As much as like Sam I've got to agree with folks who know how to work with kids and who would never, NEVER be alone--even in a public place--to counsel about sexual issues.
If a republican uttered that line...
Sam Adams: Follow Mark Foleys example and "RESIGN".
I am not a Portlander, and as such I have no dog in the fight, to quote Lars. But, I have to agree with Victoria, that I do not like Sam Adams's politics (or the politics of the others on the City Council, especially those of Taliban Tommy).
But, that being said, I really do not think that Adams is stupid enough to allow himself to be caught out in the manner "suggested" by Bob Ball. He would have nearly everything he has worked for to lose and absolutely nothing to gain, if he were to have done the things Ball alluded to.
One other thing: Why would Ball go to Randy Leonard, of all people, rather that go directly to Adams in a one-on-one closed door session with this allegation? That he did not go directly to Adams smacks of the planned beginning of a rotten smear campaign against Adams.
I would have to agree with Leonard about one thing though: Ball's political ambitions have gone into the toilet.
Post a Comment