He's not lying about it, nor is he running to be my mayor, so I don't care.

Savage, you might be interested in this story from Willamette Week. Do you really know the type of guy you're hitching your reputation to here? How well do you really know Sam Adams, because your putting yourself out there pretty far?

http://wweek.com/editorial/3512/12138/

It happens every day in every city in every country on earth. It's nothing new. People have done it for all of recorded history. Kings, queens, saints, conservative, liberal, moderate, every race and sexual orientation.

It can be fun for some people and some people can be hurt by it. It's not just for the older person. Many times it's the younger person that initiates the romance. There's nothing sick about it. It's status-quo behavior. You'll only find one psychologist against it and his name is Sigmund Freud.

"He's not lying about it, nor is he running to be my mayor, so I don't care."

Blabbly - Can you clarify your remark? Do you mean to imply that if he _were_ running for mayor, but didn't lie about it, that you'd care? Or is it just about the issue of lying? In other words, if T.R. Knight ran for mayor in the next regular Portland election, would the existence of this relationship be a factor in your decision? If so, why?

I'm just curious because I've had so many people just absolutely insist to me that our local scandal is all about the lying and has nothing to do with sex.

Read the WW editorial, Bob. Sam's moral transgressions certainly appear to go beyond sex and lying to the media/his constituents.

I'll try to clarify:

Currenlty T.R. Knight's character is irrelevant to me.

If T.R. were running for public office, his character becomes relevant, and it is 100% fair game for voters to consider his character in whether or not to vote for him.

If he were found out to be telling whoppers and smearing opponents during the campaign season, he shouldn't be elected, because he is morally deficient.

If he were honest about dating a 19-year-old, it is completely fair and to be expected that some Portlanders would consider that fact in assessing his character and whether or not he's fit to be mayor. Many wouldn't care about this relationship. Many others would find it unusual and perhaps unsavory.

Would it effect MY vote? It's actually hard to predict. I think it's not the norm for middle-aged men to date 18 year olds. I think it may point to immaturity or a Peter Pan complex. I also think that a mayor should be somewhat mainstream in order to represent where a bulk of his constituents are coming from.

For me, the "impeachable offense" so to speak is the lying, asking others to lie, the distict feeling I have that he's still lying. But I do find the relationship inappropriate for a big-city mayor. I think, had it been admitted before the election, it would have been a character issue for me and many other voters.

But the simple revelation of the relationship itself, if it had come out for the first time now, with no previous allegations or lying during the campaign, would not be an "impeachable offense" in my opinion.

GLV, which WW editorial? Or are you referring to the article link which Blabby provided. I've already read the full article.

"I think, had it been admitted before the election, it would have been a character issue for me and many other voters."

Thank you for your reply. Your particular opinion, then, runs contrary to that of people who have insisted that there was no need for Sam to lie about this private relationship.

Sam was wrong to lie, and to encourage others to lie, of course, but it is attitudes yours that which attempt to make private relationships and "character" issues in a mayoral campaign, which offer a motivation to lie and cover-up something which should be nobody's business.

It should also be noted that Sam never mentioned anything about this private relationship (which was over by the time the mayoral campaign began) until political opponents began spreading rumors.

It was absolutely wrong of him to lie. It was absolutely wrong of him to encourage others to lie. But it is because of the circumstances surrounding the issue that I am willing to forgive the lies and not demand immediate resignation.

So you think lobbing around false rape accusations is a-ok for someone to do, let alone the mayor of a big city?

(yes but you weren't there, it may be true, blah blah...)

Sam has lied about everything to this point...Even when he was coming clean he continued to lie (men's room with a 17 year old? Really?) I see no reason to start believing him now.

"I also think that a mayor should be somewhat mainstream in order to represent where a bulk of his constituents are coming from."

So you don't want a gay mayor then?

Hey look! Over there! Is that a dead horse? LETS GO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF IT!

Bob, I find the assertion that a candidate's character shouldn't be a factor for voters to be naive to the point of being nonsensical.

I'm not forced into telling lies because I do things above board, and when I mess up, I own up to it. I expect no less from my mayor.

Sam Adams caused all of this. Not Bob Ball, not the media, not homophobes, not people calling for his resignation. The events and behavior that have precipitated this situation were all under the control of Sam Adams.

Graham, I know many mainstream gay people.

So the Sam supporters now have these three catch phrases as their world crumbles:
"calm down, you homophobes"
"stay in the suburbs you christian bigots"
"only Sam can save us"

Arguments none of which address what is actually happening.

The age difference doesn't really matter, gay, straight or otherwise. As long at they're two consenting adults (age 18 and older) and they don't lie about it when confronted by the media. I am so sick of people making it a gay issue. It ISN'T. Fact is - Sam Adams LIED and asked others to LIE for him. His sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

@Blabby

Just because you say you know mainstream gay people, doesn't mean that they "represent where a bulk of his constituents are coming from".

You want a mascot, not a mayor.

GLV asks: "So you think lobbing around false rape accusations is a-ok for someone to do, let alone the mayor of a big city?"

Since you want to get into the gory details from the WW article, here's the salient quote:

"Adams says he called Vezina after fielding a hysterical phone call from Breedlove, accusing Vezina of attempted rape. Adams said Vezina was mad at him because of the angry voicemail Adams left."

So GLV, are you saying that the call never took place? You seem to be readily dismissive of the statement. "blah blah blah" and all that.

Adams' subsequent statement that "I do not actually know what happened between Beau and John [...] I honestly don’t know what happened" does not actually contradict the earlier statement that a hysterical phone call was made by Breedlove.

"Bob, I find the assertion that a candidate's character shouldn't be a factor for voters to be naive to the point of being nonsensical."

Because you're defining a big chunk of "character" as "who someone enters into a consensual, private relationship with", where that relationship has no bearing on city policy.

I'd be far more concerned if a candidate was dating a lobbyist and did not disclose the relationship.

In any case, as far as Adams is concerned, there is a state investigation going on. If shocking new revelations come out of that investigation, I'll certainly take those into consideration. But my radical position right now is that immediate resignation is not required, give the guy a chance to do his job, and in 6 months initiate a recall if he's not performing well or the investigation turns up something significant.

I'll note that at last night's well-attended, previously-scheduled Rose City Park Neighborhood Association meeting with Mayor Adams and Commissioner Fish, dozens of people (perhaps 75+) attended, there was a lengthy Q&A, KOIN was there, and nobody in attendance brought up questions about the scandal. It was all about city policy, and it went exactly as one would expect in a scandal-free environment.

"TR Knight didn't lie and obfuscate about his relationship. The problem is once you've lied to me, you've broken an agreement, and I don't know if I can trust Adams again."

Mikeypdx's position is one that I have far more respect for, as opposed to Blabby, who wishes to include private legal consensual relationships in the definition of "character" and have people vote based on that.

Did he lie about it to get his job?

Is he in a position of fiduciary responsibility?

Does he have a legion of apologists that will excuse him for any behavior just short of mass murder?

Was he in a position of unequal authority when the relationship was started?

Did he slander other people to get the job when they mentioned the relationship?

Did he bribe others or at least give the appearance of impropriety to hide the fact?

Face it Dan, you're wrong to support a Mayor just because he's gay- which is just as ignorant and bigoted as not supporting him because he's gay. With your constant aggregation of all christians into one group, you've consistently shown yourself to be both.

You can spin it a thousand ways, but any difference from that, to the extent of the difference, is not the truth.

"Because you're defining a big chunk of "character" as "who someone enters into a consensual, private relationship with", where that relationship has no bearing on city policy."

I'm defining the conduct of one's personal life as a reflection on character. Absolutely.

Again, the idea that personal conduct, including relationships, are not going to come out and have a bearing on the electability of a candidate for public office is just laughably naive. What universe do you live in?

A candidate may have perfectly legal private relationship with a transvestite. But would you really expect it not to come up in the media? Would you really expect that not to affect the impression of the candidate among many many voters? Would you really expect no voter to think "I'm uncomfortable with a mayor who dates transvestites?"

The social justice of it is beside the point. You're just being naive.

"Does he have a legion of apologists that will excuse him for any behavior just short of mass murder?"

So in your mind, is having a relationship with an 18-year-old and lying about it publicly "just short of mass murder"? I can think of a lot of things that fall in-between the two extremes of that spectrum.

Or is this just an effort from "legions of critics" to smear anyone who is willing to forgive and doesn't think that immediate resignation is the best option as an "apologist" who will excuse anything?

Blabby, you're perfectly welcome to argue that your personal prejudices, about how private relationships constitute "character", and the prejudices of other voters should be a factor in making voting decisions.

But I'm free to argue that notions such as yours, which are irrelevant to job performance and city policy, are a factor which explains why an otherwise talented, capable politician would be motivated to lie and encourage others to lie. It is factors such as that which influence my decision to forgive this transgression (of lying) on Sam's part and give him a chance to do the city's business. If he fails at that, or there are further revelations, we'll have a chance in 6 months to rectify the situation.

this issue, to me, isn't about sex... but it seems to me like you're making it one.

yes, we get it, you're a gay columnist who just loves our gay mayor. that's fine, but to me, someone who isn't a homophobe and who doesn't give a rat's ass who the mayor fucks as long as he sticks to consenting adults, the issue here is his glaring character flaws and the hiring of miss ruiz in the cover-up.

i voted for sam. i'm not calling for his resignation, nor am i going to be seen at a rally in support of him. he fucked up, and big, but that doesn't mean he can't redeem himself - which is exactly what i'd like to see him do.

blog posts like this one are completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, as is anything about who anyone in the TV world is dating. quit trying to make a name for yourself, or at least try to add something intelligent to the conversation.

Bob, I understand your position. I think that you will end up being disappointed in Sam Adams.

And everyone votes based on their personal prejudices.

Re: the salient quote, an unreported, alleged attempted rape and 4 year old phone message is conveniently brought up by Sam in an interview, and you don't think that constitutes pressing the issue?

No one would have ever known about this alleged incident if Sam hadn't brought it up in the interview, which he knew full well would be made public. Given his history of falsely smearing his detractors, and the recent resignation of the other interview participant, I'd have to say the veracity of this new claim is extremely questionable.

"are you saying that the call never took place? You seem to be readily dismissive of the statement. "

I've answered that question twice now.

"But I'm free to argue that notions such as yours, which are irrelevant to job performance and city policy, are a factor which explains why an otherwise talented, capable politician..."

Maybe his ability to lead hasn't been compromised, but the populace's ability to follow him has been significantly damaged. That's the problem.

I think T.R. Knight should resign, because Gray's Anatomy sucks.

"Maybe his ability to lead hasn't been compromised, but the populace's ability to follow him has been significantly damaged. That's the problem."

It didn't seem to cause any trouble at last night's well-attended neighborhood association meeting.

The issue did come up in city hall public comments today, as you know from the other Mercury blog thread, but the testimony came from the guy from notwithsam.com , not from people who had showed up to testify about the specific issue.

A Cat reporting in...

"I think T.R. Knight should resign, because Gray's Anatomy sucks."

Finally, something we can all agree on.

Good point Bob. If there's a more complete cross-section of Portland residents than attendees at one Rose City Park Neighborhood Association meeting, I don't know what it is.

GLV -

The point is that this was the first public event outside of city hall, out in the neighborhoods, accessible by local residents in the evening, no security screening, plenty of parking ... there was no impediment keeping critics from voicing their concerns. This meeting had been advertised by a newsletter hand-delivered to nearly every residence.

It just so happened that the neighbors had more pressing concerns they wanted addressed.

Jerry Seinfeld was dating Shoshana Lonstein when she was in high school and just 17. "She was just 17, you know what I mean..."

In many states, the age of consent is 16. Why did he lie? Because small minded people, the kind of people who dont have the opportunity to have sex with anyone attractive, would get upset about it. Because people who oppose his policy positions would seize it as a reason to not elect him. But ultimately, this is normal human sexual behavior. You may not like that, but it is.

Dan Savage should Shut The Fuck Up Already and let us go about putting our town back together without his out-of-town comments. We're perfectly capable of dealing with this issue without a sex columnist I think, since it's not about sex. The unacceptable behavior was the cover up and the cronyism and I don't see how a sex columnist can help in this situation.

Or maybe I'm wrong and Dr. Ruth would like to discuss?

"Or maybe I'm wrong and Dr. Ruth would like to discuss?"

Well, some people, like Blabby, want to include sex as part of the definition of "character" which is to be voted on in an election. So take it up with Blabby.

Chill out, Bob.

Will someone please ask Sam Adams if Breedlove teabagged him? We should really get to the bottom of this pressing question. I think Portland deserves a non-teabaggin' mayor. That's where I draw the line.

I find this quote from Adams in Time magazine interesting:

When asked if the media hold public officials to an impossible moral standard, he simply says, "No," then adds, "It's a very high standard, and it can be intrusive, but I knew what I was getting into when I decided to run for public office, so I'm not complaining about it now."


Sounds like Adams himself agrees more with me than you, Bob.

I'm glad Sam's not complaining about it now, I'd rather he be getting city-related work done. Nonetheless, I'll complain about it. (Here's a clue for you:: Just because I'm willing to forgive Sam, doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.) I note also from the article that he says he welcomes the investigation.

For those interested in reading the Time article that Blabby forgot to provide a link for, it's here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,…

"I note also from the article that he says he welcomes the investigation."

Yeah, sure he does.

"Yeah, sure he does."

Well, Blabby, you're the one who originally quoted from the article to make some kind of argument... or are you going to just pick and choose the quotes you want us to believe, and those you don't want us to believe?

You're right, I actually shouldn't believe any of his quotes should I?

"You're right, I actually shouldn't believe any of his quotes should I?"

No, I'm saying you shouldn't quote them as proof of your argument if you don't believe them yourself.

You know, the other day I was watching tv and Bugs Bunny whacked Elmer Fudd over the head with a sledgehammer. It was hilarious!

Would I support Bugs for mayor? No.

So now this has evolved into the same 6 people arguing with everyone. OK, I'm out. I'll let you six people yell on the internet alone. Have fun...

wank wank wank

Gavin Newsom (SF's mayor) dated a 19-year-old while he was mayor for several months. He was 39. People called him trashy, but he still got reelected a year later (and with a new, more age-appropriate girlfriend).