We’re in violent agreement: What Mayor Sam Adams did was wrong.
What we still can’t agree on, however, is how it was wrong.
For some, it was the idea of a 42-year-old man bedding an 18-year-old.
For others it was about the ensuing cover-up. And for others still, it
was about betrayal of public trust. Throw in power dynamics, ageism,
sexism, homophobia, and gay vs. hetero culture, and it’s little wonder
why this issue has grown so overwhelmingly confusing.
It’s a story of multiple threads that have rolled and twisted into
an impossible knot, pitting morality against logic, forgiveness against
retribution. And there’s no easy way to undo the knot. Each thread will
have to be painstakingly separated and examined to finally bring
closure to what has been, we can all agree, an inconceivably
distressing week.
That being said (and don’t kill me), I’d like to add another thread
to this knot. Not because I’m interested in seeing this
cluster-kerfluffle last indefinitely—but because the kerfluffle
isn’t going to stop. Not anytime soon. And when it does stop, don’t we
want our scars to mean something?
So, here’s the question: How much responsibility should we, as
Portlanders, bear for bringing this scandal into existence? Again, I am
in no mood to defend Sam Adams: His lies extend past “I didn’t sleep
with that kid,” coming dangerously close to permanently ruining at
least three people’s reputations. However, these situations don’t
happen in a vacuum, and people lie for very specific reasons. So let’s
pause to examine a very basic question: Why didn’t Sam trust us?
“NO COMMENT”
Sam certainly had the opportunity not to lie. The scandal
started in the summer of 2007, when then political rival/developer Bob
Ball leaked an overheard rumor about Adams having an inappropriate
relationship with 17-year-old Beau Breedlove.
“If this had come from the right wing—and it probably will
now—that would have been one thing,” Adams told the
Mercury at the time. “But to come from another gay man is
something more hurtful. It plays into the worst deep-seated fears
society has about gay men: You can’t trust them with your young.”
Trust.
Because there are those who automatically link homosexuality to
pedophilia, Sam knew he had huge misconceptions to overcome. He was on
track to become Portland’s first gay mayor—the first gay mayor of
any major US city. Like President Obama, Sam was poised to make
history—and if history is any indication, Americans prefer their
historical figures squeaky clean.
For years, trust has been in short supply when it comes to public
figures, and especially politicians. Years of lies from the Bush
administration (and Clinton before that) do not come without a price.
Sure, Sam could have simply said, “You know what? As long as I haven’t
broken any laws—and I haven’t—my private life is none of
your business.” But take it from someone who works in the newspaper
industry: To a modern reader who distrusts practically everything, “no
comment” can be just as damning as a full confession.
Sam spelled it out pretty clearly in his recent public apology/press
conference of January 20: “I lied at the time because I was concerned
that untrue rumors being circulated by an undeclared campaign opponent
said I had broken the law involving sexual relations with a
minor—but that is not a good excuse.”
He didn’t trust us. He didn’t trust that we’d accept “mind your own
business” as an acceptable answer. And he certainly didn’t trust that
we’d be cool with the idea of a 42-year-old man having a brief sexual
relationship with an 18-year-old.
And after this past week’s public reaction, should we be
surprised?
NOT THAT INNOCENT
So Sam chose to lie, and on that lie a house of cards was built.
Each card represents a different person who came in contact with the
lie—and like Sam, no one is completely innocent. The three people
who so far seem most directly affected by Sam’s actions (we’re not
including people like myself who only have
“hurt feelings”) are Bob
Ball, former Mercury News Editor (now Sam’s staffer) Amy J.
Ruiz, and of course, Beau Breedlove.
It’s been said that Bob Ball’s reputation has been permanently
tainted by Sam’s lies. However, while Bob Ball may have felt it was his
duty (as a reserve police officer, no less) to relay these
rumors—which at that time were clearly just hearsay—it’s
doubtful he would have done so had he not been gearing up for a mayoral
race. (And if you want to be technical about it, the rumors he passed
on—that Adams had been in a sexual relationship with a
17-year-old—have yet to be proven true.)
As stated in the Willamette Week‘s story by Nigel Jaquiss,
who first broke the scandal, Amy J. Ruiz was a member of the
Mercury‘s news team that, between late 2007 and mid-2008,
confronted Sam with allegations that he had lied about his relationship
with Beau—allegations he denied. After exhausting all possible
leads, the story—though still considered an “open case”—was
relegated to our “unsolved mysteries” pile. By year’s end, Amy had
applied for and accepted a job as “Sustainability Policy Adviser” with
Sam’s administration. Within two weeks of employment, the WW‘s
Jaquiss wrote a report strongly insinuating Sam bought her off in an
effort to take her off the story.
Let’s set aside the fact that Sam never offered a cushy government
job to any of our other reporters who knew just as much about the case
(or more importantly, to Jaquiss himself). After Nigel’s story broke,
the Mercury‘s news reporter, Matt Davis, did exhaustive research
into Amy’s hiring process (which you can read for yourself in the
Mercury‘s Blogtown entry “The Ruiz Questions: Part 3,” Jan 20),
and found that Amy was not technically hired by Sam—she had
actually been screened and interviewed by Sam’s Senior Policy Director
Lisa Libby and Chief of Staff Tom Miller.
“Sam was enthusiastic about [the hiring of Amy] but the decision to
[hire] her was mine and mine alone,” Miller told the
Mercury.
Did Nigel interview Tom Miller or Lisa Libby for his original story?
Did he ask them for an actual job description to determine if Amy was
qualified for the position? If so, it wasn’t included in his
investigative report. (Note: The Pulitzer committee usually frowns on
these types of omissions.)
On the other hand, Amy hasn’t made things easy on herself or her
defenders. She applied for her current position in early November,
without telling the Mercury, and continued to write her city
hall column, Hall Monitor. She was also aware that the Mercury‘s
ongoing investigation was (and remains) “open”—and while Amy
stated she believed Sam’s claims of innocence, she didn’t have any real
facts to prove or disprove the allegations.
Regardless, Sam could’ve easily predicted the trouble Amy was
getting herself into, and scuttled her application for any number of
reasons, while protecting his secret. But he didn’t. He watched as she
was hired, and blithely swam into shark-infested waters. Thanks,
boss!
In defense of Beau Breedlove, well… he was young—but he was
old enough to have heard of Monica Lewinsky.
[For more on how one should behave when having a sexual relationship
with an older politician, please see Dan Savage’s piece, “The Tea
and Sympathy Rule”
UNTANGLING THE KNOT
So Sam’s not innocent, the people directly involved are not entirely
innocent—and guess what? We’re not innocent either.
Portlanders have gone out of their way to protect Sam over the
years, and often for good reason: His transportation and environmental
policies line up almost exactly with what a modern progressive
city should be striving to attain. And though the “Support Sam” rallies
struggled with their message, their basic idea was sound: What goes on
in Sam’s pants and inside his head are two separate things. Portland
hired him for his head. (Thank god.)
But make no mistake—those days of protection are over. While
his lies may not be as dastardly as the Oregonian editorial
board would have you believe (seriously, the only thing they left out
was a picture of Sam as Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache and
tying Beau to the railroad tracks), his untruths still hold the power
to do an incredible amount of damage to many people’s lives—and
he knew it. He knew it all along, and yet woke up every morning
determined to lie again.
We now know Sam much better than most politicians. We know what he’s
capable of, which means we no longer have the luxury of sitting back
and letting our government run unattended. And while the events of the
past weeks may have temporarily shattered our confidence, this is our
opportunity to do the hardest thing of all: change.
When our new president talks of change, he almost always adds that
the change in question doesn’t come from him—it comes from us. If
we choose to do so, we can accept our responsibility in this situation.
We can accept that we, as a culture, often rush to judgment. We can
accept that we often judge people for their sexuality (both positively
and negatively), rather than what they have to offer to society. We can
admit that we often lump morality and sexuality into the same
simplistic basket. And we should admit we sometimes overprotect certain
minorities solely out of guilt.
And our local media is just as complicit. We—Mercury included—are often more preoccupied with taking people down,
rather than building them up; more interested in scandal than
illuminating our readership with information that can change and
augment their lives.
Where does our responsibility for the success of our leaders start
and end? How much longer will we hold them to a moral code higher than
what we’re willing to take on ourselves?
In the end, “we the people” is all we have—and it’s time to
look inside ourselves and pursue what that really means. The answer
lies inside that tangled, tangled knot. And just like Sam, it’s time
for us to get to work on it.
Very thoughtful article. I think the “no comment” thing is very central to this issue. Most people who are angry he lied don’t realize that refusing to answer the question would probably been as bad for him as saying yes.
“To a modern reader who distrusts practically everything, “no comment” can be just as damning as a full confession.”
Tis why you answer with:
“I do not comment on private matters or rumors”
And you don’t.
Corporate CEOs have done this for decades. You aren’t expected to answer every detail on your life.
Wow. You have single-handedly changed my entire opinion of the Mercury with one single article.*
This is exactly what needs to be said. You have broken down the separate threads of this issue so well and shown what a complex ethical situation it is.
And you’ve admitted that the Mercury also does this – tears down rather than builds up. Could it be that the Mercury is turning over (at least part of) a new leaf?
Sam is such a capable leader that I think the City of Portland has taken him for granted. When I thought that he might resign it brought home to me how much responsibility for building Portland’s future I had laid at his doorstep. Now I realize that I need to get out there and do more, and I think many other people are waking up too. To public conversations that have needed to be had for a long time and to the fact that we all have to be part of the solution, lest our fate ride on just one man.
I think some good can come out of this situation yet, and I’m so grateful that you at the Mercury have been a sane and serious voice in this debate.
Thank you,
Jennifer Howell
*I realize this sounds bad. Mainly, I often don’t look at the Mercury as “serious” because the tone is often glib or snarky rather than earnest.
Very well written. Bravo, Merc.
Thanks for taking a step back and taking the time to provide thought and context around all the facts, rumors, and accusations that have been flying for the past few weeks.
I know it’s coke-hipster sarcasm and pop-culture that keeps the ad dollars flowing, but I think this town has enough grown-ups to appreciate writing like this more often.
A well written article, but since I didn’t vote for Adams (or was in the position of a publication, as The Mercury, to endorse Adams, I feel no responsibility for this mess at all.
Let’s put the responsibility back where it belongs – on Adams shoulders.
And, I do feel bad for Adams personally. His energy level and work ethic is needed in this position.
But he fucked it up for a piece of ass.
And I also think there is a good reason we hold our elected officials to a higher standard. They are not only role-models for many youth, but are NEEDED by us to have a sense of faith in Government. I mean, one of the biggest critisisms about Nixon was he left the public with a sense of cynisism on the role of government in our lives for generations…
(this is where we have to be thankful for Obama now…)
And thus, I don’t even think to question Adams about potentially nailing a 17 yr old was off limits to us.
And, it IS creepy.
I wonder if he is getting a free pass on this issue simply because he is gay. I would tend to think a straight man of 42 would have been crucified for any hint of of a relationship with a 17 / 18 yr old.
And I hope this doesn’t sound anti-gay here either…. that isn’t the point. I have voted and fought for gay rights for over 20 years now…
But it seems as if many gays are willing to look past the creepiness of this, along with the lies, and basically stealing the election, simply because he is gay.
I was ready to say Blame us? Bite me!’ – But you make excellent points and this is a refreshing take on a scandal that’s starting to wear on us, thank you.
The bottom line however does remain –
‘He knew it all along, and yet woke up every morning determined to lie again.’
We don’t vote for elected officials only due to thier view on this or that issue. We also vote for them as a “person”. It’s your right to disagree with this, but it’s my right, and anyone else’s right, to vote the “person” in tandem with the “issues”. Today’s issues are long gone, and long replaced, by the time an elected official’s term ends. That’s why we look at a person’s judgement and character when deciding whether or not to hand this person the reins of power – power over us – for a period of time. Sam’s judgement and character are in issue here. I have good friends who are gay and I support gay marriage. But, I have a problem with any middle aged man who would make out with a 17 year old – male or female – in a cityhall men’s room, who would actively and forcefully lie rather than give a “no comment”, and who would allow Ruiz to be hired into the position she was hired into (please, were there no other applicants just as qualified?). I wonder about this person’s judgement and character. I want more answers before deciding to allow him to have power over me for several more years.
Thank you merc. Well reasoned and well thought out. We are all together and no one lives on an island.
Fantastic Article, than you for providing something that the Oregonian is incapable of providing: A reasonable voice.
Great article, a little kumbaya at the end but really interesting thoughts. I hope you’ll post it up north on Slog, where we sometimes miss you very very much.
I wonder whether an electorate’s expectations of honesty ratchet up as an official gets elected, then reelected, and then elected to higher office, with the public delegating more and more power to the official as time goes on. I kind of think voters might tend to feel a wee bit more shocked and scared because the integrity lapse leaked practically the moment they’d just elevated Adams.
And I doubt voters will ever quit wanting elected officials to be more principled than the average citizen. Officials have asked for and been granted special powers from the people, and it comes with a price that includes demonstrating you can withstand the ubiquitous temptations to political corruption. If the public felt corruption was rare, voters wouldn’t be so touchy about signs of ethical weakness. To overcome this, politicians do promise voters they are exceptionally ethical people–certainly compared to the opposing candidates– so part of the expectation of higher behavior is one they flog themselves.
It gets intensified the smaller the jurisdiction, where voters tend to have a more personal attitude toward their electeds. Ah, Portland.
I missed Idol last night. Sigh.
I am more worried about my job status in this recession time. Not to mention the wars in the middle east and crazy shits happening in Africa. I completely almost forgot about Sam’s little scandal, until I picked up the WW and Mercury. There are way more important issues! As long Sam bring jobs and the new MAX to Portland, I won’t care if he sleeps with a woman next.
Well done. I’ll agree with the “I do not comment on private matters” note, but point out that it’s not always what comes to mind at the time.
I’ll also back up Jen Howell’s comment- and Jen, I’ve written a few cover stories for the Merc myself. It is indeed good to see it/ Steve/ we can be serious when it matters.
Why did Sam lie?
Because he KNEW what he did was an actual CRIME.
HELLO.
Plus, how can we trust his word now that he didn’t actually have sex with Beau until he was 18???
SERIOUSLY, I think the IQ of this entire country is in freefall, Portland notwithstanding…SO SAD.
Amen. Thank you for actually asking something from us besides more empty shouts from one side to the other. I’m ready to work!
Anyone wanting to dig into the deeper issues that abound should attend tonight’s free event “Private Lives in the Public Eye” 6-7:30pm at UO Portland, White Stag Building, 70 NW Couch. (check out http://www.oregonhum.org for info)
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and our own Peter DeFazio, are two politicians that I trust and respect, and to the best of my knowledge, haven’t lied or cheated to get where they are today. To keep men like Adams in office is an affont to respectable politicians like those three that have great ideas and don’t screw around. (OK Ron Paul not believing in Evolution or Environmental policy is wonky, but I digress.)
correction, THREE politicians.
WOuld be nice to get an edit feature, and some html tagging capability up in this house, merc!
“His transportation and environmental policies line up almost exactly with what a modern progressive city should be striving to attain.”
Would that be an aerial tram of limited utility that comes in at twice the projected budget? Or building a new $4 billion bridge without increasing capacity? Or spending tens of millions on a streetcar to run up and down MLK and Grand, for all the people who apparently don’t know how to step onto a bus?
Does “progressive” just mean “stupid” now?
“Would that be an aerial tram of limited utility that comes in at twice the projected budget?”
It also has much higher than the original projected ridership (nearly double at times), and during the December snow storm was basically the only reliable way up or down Marquam Hill.
“Or building a new $4 billion bridge without increasing capacity?”
Agree or disagree with the CRC proposals, even the “smallest” of them is a significant increase in capacity. Don’t let the lane counts fool you — the proposals are for wider lanes and 4 full shoulders. If those lanes were striped the way the current bridges are, the 8-lane proposal would be 10 or 12, and the 12-lane proposal would be 18 lanes! Plus, there’s major new interchanges for about a 5-mile stretch.
Personally, I think it’s way overkill, and there are far more cost-effective alternatives which weren’t even studied. But “without increasing capacity” is not a factually-accurate criticism at all.
“Or spending tens of millions on a streetcar to run up and down MLK and Grand, for all the people who apparently don’t know how to step onto a bus?”
Without getting into an argument as to whether or not the philosophy is correct, the intent of putting in streetcars is to increase development, population and commercial density, and therefore walkability, while also increasing the tax base. It’s not about simply replacing a bus with rubber tires with a train on steel wheels. Now, a number of people have argued that such development is achievable in other ways, or that tax incentives are the driver of that development… I’m just trying to point out the city’s rationale behind expanding streetcar service to certain corridors.
“Does “progressive” just mean “stupid” now?”
No. Thanks for asking.
“It also has much higher than the original projected ridership”
It’s not paying for itself, I know that.
Our fearless leaders have gotten up to 8 lanes, this is true, but for a long time fought to stick with 6 lanes. this thing is going to cost $4 billion (probably $6 or $8 billion by the time its done). I say build the sucker to last 100 years. Furthermore, Pdx and Metro aren’t contributing that much money towards it – WA and OR state should tell us to f’ off and build whatever they want. I-5 is THE transportation route of the entire West Coast – why is the decision being made in Portland City Hall, the national capital of navel-gazing and self-congratulation?
“the intent of putting in streetcars is to increase development, population and commercial density, and therefore walkability, while also increasing the tax base.”
There isn’t a single credible report that demonstrates this effect. (I know you weren’t claiming to know the veracity, just explaining the rationale. Bu the rationale is bunk.)
And honestly, I haven’t heard anyone make a reasonable explanation why the expense of streetcars makes a lick of sense on routes that can easily be served by bus. A bus is 100 times more flexible than a set of tracks permanently affixed in the street.
Nice attempt at damage control Hump. Face it, the Mercury’s reputation has been bruised by your failure to keep Ruiz up to par. However, I would like to thank Matt Davis for apparently being the only person from the Merc/Stranger’s staff who seems to have the ability to be objective in this mess.
I voted for Sam and I feel betrayed by both Sam’s failure to act ethically as a public official, but also by your paper’s (or Amy’s rather) failure to do the digging that I guess the WW was willing to do.
One thing is for sure, I would not have voted for Sam had I known what I know now. As Mr. Davis noted in his article, many people who have worked with Sam over the years do not speak kindly of him behind closed doors. Sam is and has always been self-serving, the polar opposite of a civil-servant. He manipulated Beau, he manipulated you and your staff, and he sure as shit manipulated the good people of Portland.
Sam’s days are in politics are over, there are plenty of progressive Portlanders waiting to replace him and who are willing to take their oath of office seriously. As for the Mercury, I hope you’ve learned your lesson as well.
So, if Tom Potter had been caught making out with a 17-yr old in the city hall bathroom, and sleeping with her shortly after, the Mercury would of course be consistent, and be telling us to pause and look inside ourselves? Seriously? You know that you guys would be slaughtering him endlessly in your paper.
The Mercury provides great entertainment coverage, art, and humor, but your political reporting has always been biased. You pick your favorites (Franzoni, Adams) and your foes (Potter, Dozono) and all of your reporting follows this lead. This time you got caught in it, and now you’re trying to backtrack and appoint yourselves the even-handed arbiters of introspection.
Dude,
Volunteered on the Sho campaign. Watched your coverage. You literally took Sam Adams stance word for word the entire campaign. There was not justification or excuse. The Mercury via Ruiz took his side on every issue and empowered him to feel safe in his lying. Which has continued up until today (read WWeek lately).
This debacle is more than a lie about sex. It was Sam lying with such a polished efficiency and expertise that it was scary to realize. He used every media outlet and relationship in the city to destroy Bob Ball’s name. He similarly went to work on Sho Dozono.
Whether they deserved to be destroyed or not the Mercury was there every step of the way taking spoon-fed spin. You are his enabler and will likely continue to be.
The free pass you gave him on denying V.O.E. Its unbelievable given your coverage and support of this system that you then easily let it’s principle fold just because you biased supported Sam.
Sam Adams is no longer legally fit in Oregon to serve as an Attorney, a CPA, a Financial Planner, or public safety officer. He therefore should not be fit to hold the highest Executive office in Portland.
there’s still this to consider:
City of Portland Code of Ethics
Chapter 1.03
1.03.020 Trust. The purpose of City government is to serve the public. City officials treat their office as a public trust.
B. City officials promote public respect by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
*Explanations and Examples*
1.03.010 Definitions.
1.03.020 Trust. The purpose of City government is to serve the public. City officials treat their office as a public trust. City officials have special powers, along with a special obligation to act only on behalf of the public. {ORS Chapter 244 declares public office a public trust, prohibits certain actions, and provides penalties. An explanatory guide is available from the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission.}
2. Ensure public respect by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. [Public service requires a continual effort to overcome cynical attitudes and suspicions about the people in government. For example, conduct which could appear dishonest to a reasonable observer will undermine the public trust even if the conduct is not illegal.]
Say huh? This is all MY fault somehow? Sam not being able to say NO to a very sexualized 17 year old, his lying about it, his using it to slander a potential opponent, his writing a lie-filled self righteous letter to the people of Portland, his hiring a reporter who had investigated his lies, his slandering his ex with accusations of rape when the ex tried to bring the lies to light–all of this is the fault of the people of Portland? Damn, Sam does have some friends doesn’t he. Will we hold this man accountable to his actions or not? I am a sex loving, sex positive queer. That doesn’t make any of what Sam did okay to me. “What goes on in Sam’s pants and inside his head are two separate things. Portland hired him for his head.”–One would hope that what’s inside Sam’s pants are connected with his brain–if not, this will surely happen again. Sam needs to resign. Short of that, he will be recalled. He lied to get a job. Period. And he lied because he knew what he did was wrong…wrong enough that he wouldn’t win the mayoral race. He unfortunately didn’t come to this conclusion until after having a few months of fun with Beau. There really aren’t any Right Reasons to do the Wrong Thing.
I’m seconding Jennifer’s opinion “You have single-handedly changed my entire opinion of the Mercury with one single article.”
This was a extremely contemplative piece that neither blames nor lets anyone off the hook. It’s truely amazing to see a media outlet avoid sensationalism and just for a moment pause and think. Thank you for illuminating our collective responsibility both to move forward, and make this city a better place to live. This is true journalism.
Luke Owen Frishkoff
Leave Sam Adams aloooooooooooone!!! Leave him aloooone!!!
Redpine et al.: No, this is editorializing. Jouralism is the craft of conveying news; this article hasn’t done one iota of that craft. You may like the tone, you may like the introspection, but this is an editorial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Re…
one thing that’s been missing from all the opinionizing i’ve read: has Sam lied about what he’s doing on the job? the Ruiz issue aside, do we have any evidence his lying extends past this episode? i’m not sure how he could lie about public policy and city records given how many people have access to the same information. there seems to be a clear-cut line between what Sam did for himself — try to protect himself from a smear campaign started by a political rival — and what he’s done as a public official.
unless someone really does think he’s lying on the job. in which case, let’s see some evidence. as far as i can tell, this was a failure of courage in a personal moment of conflict (a failure that would strike most of the people now castigating him) with no replication in his public life. which is part of the reason i continue to believe Sam is still the best person to serve as mayor.
“So let’s pause to examine a very basic question: Why didn’t Sam trust us?”
Sorry, that’s definitely NOT the question we should be asking. The basic question is why didn’t Sam have the honest-to-god courage to stand up and say what he did.
Why didn’t Sam trust himself?!
Why didn’t this man have the simple courage, the real guts to admit to the relationship, and then deal with whatever happened next?
Adams has now proven that he folds under pressure. Not only that, but he is willing to throw others under the proverbial bus in order to benefit himself.
Adams, unfortunately, is not someone we should expect anything very positive from based on what’s happened.
“Regardless, Sam could’ve easily predicted the trouble Amy was getting herself into, and scuttled her application for any number of reasons, while protecting his secret. But he didn’t. He watched as she was hired, and blithely swam into shark-infested waters. Thanks, boss!”
Yes, because the naive little girl shouldn’t be expected to take care of herself in the big bad shark-infested waters…
You’ve got to be kidding me! Sam is responsible for his actions and should be held accountable for them!. We shouldn’t take blame for his moral and ethical failings, quit making excuses for bad behavior that’s whats wrong with society today no one takes responsibility for their actions and everyone excuses it. Is this how our parents and their parents behaved , honestly everyone needs to look inside and be honest with yourself.
I have to respectfully disagree with the points in your article. For me, this is not about someone’s sexuality or the perceptions I have of it. It is not about the fact that I rush to judgements. It is also not about being unable to separate private vs. public life. This is about a public official, whom I voted for, revealing an ability to be COMPLETELY dishonest with the very people who would determine his career. I think it is wonderful that you have reported that Sam had nothing to do with Amy’s hiring. You say his own staff confirmed that. Well, why should I believe what they say on the subject? Why should I believe anything he and his staff tell us?
Of course he didn’t have sexual relations with the kid when he was 17. That would have been illegal and would now be a concrete, unavoidable reason to lose his job. What does he have to gain by telling us that such a thing happened.
THAT is the issue. Not sexuality. Not how we perceive others. Nothing involving US.
This is about a person who lied to advance his career.
If I lie on a resume, don’t I get punished. I sure as heck do not get the job.
And for the record, private matters are private matters. Unfortunately for Adams, he is a PUBLIC official elected by the PEOPLE, and what he should… in my humble opinion… be darn sure that what he does in private will never be an issue with people should it become public.
Sam Adams is a fraud and we the citizens of this city will recall him from office.
Since he has not the common sense or decency to leave we will recover the office of mayor from this looser.
What unadulterated bullshit. I don’t care who sucked the body part of whom. I don’t want to know that about my leaders — instead, I want them to take us somewhere we NEED to go, willingly or not.
Why Sam SHOULD resign is simple: he LIED. Then he enlisted the help of at least one other person to LIE. When the whole mess blew past, he was elected, and was newly sworn in, he learned that a newspaper was about to expose his LIE, he finally fessed up. The trouble is, in fessing up, he also LIED. We now know that he LIED about having no sexual contact with the minor, because he engaged in at least two lip-locks with the kid, one in a car, the other for longer than a minute in a public bathroom, both while the boy was almost 18, but still 17. He’s lied about so many things, ther is no basis for credibility here. Sadly, for an admirable, smart, good-hearted man, he has undercut any ability he might otherwise have had because he LIED. Things may tone down for awhile, but two future events will cause the mushroom clouds to go up again: the Attorney General’s investigation results into the legality of Adams’ contact with the boy, and at six months and one day into Sam’s term as mayor, the filing of a recall petition.
I for one, as a gay man and an Adams supporter, am sickened by the whole mess and the waste of Sam’s name and potential as a public figure we need now. But our need for honesty in public figures, regardless of the discomfort their answers might cause, is paramount.
For the good of the City of Portland, and for his own future, Sam needs to resign…NO LIE
An excellent article that is perhaps the most rational and well thought out piece I’ve ever seen in the Mercury. However it misses one crucial point.
It’s not why didn’t we trust Sam but….why did the question get asked in the first place? The way the original question was asked of him was a complete trap that he couldn’t easily avoid without being slandered. It was **designed** to make him look bad no matter what answer he gave…truthful or not. It’s like that old question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” No matter how someone answers that it sounds bad.
So maybe we all need to get over caring who has sex with who and talk about whether someone is a good and decent person who does their JOB well….since that’s what we’re talking about.
It’s time to forget about who’s perfect and talk about who’s making a difference. Sam…..he’s making a difference just by being himself.
An excellent article that is perhaps the most rational and well thought out piece I’ve ever seen in the Mercury. However it misses one crucial point.
It’s not why didn’t we trust Sam but….why did the question get asked in the first place? The way the original question was asked of him was a complete trap that he couldn’t easily avoid without being slandered. It was **designed** to make him look bad no matter what answer he gave…truthful or not. It’s like that old question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” No matter how someone answers that it sounds bad.
So maybe we all need to get over caring who has sex with who and talk about whether someone is a good and decent person who does their JOB well….since that’s what we’re talking about.
It’s time to forget about who’s perfect and talk about who’s making a difference. Sam…..he’s making a difference just by being himself.
I didn’t even read your article i just read the headline and it’s enough to make me not want to read the article.
sounds like an article trying to tip toe around trying to appease everyone. I’m so sick of the passive not taking responsibility for my actions crap about 80% of this city embodies.
it’s really starting to bother me. Can anyone actually speak their mind in this town. It’s all regurgitated from someone elses mouth, 620 on your am to be exact!
someone in portland. please think for yourself. please.
I wonder what other local community leaders could be snagged in an abuse of power- I’m stooping my intern round-up? To me the issue is not about being gay or even if he had sex with him two weeks before he was 18- it’s about abuse of power. Interns and employees should be off limits to those in positions of power. But this power dynamic leads to more of this than anyone is aware of. Physicians doing their assistants, Council members doing their interns, local publishers asking their interns to quit internship programs so they can dip their quill in the company ink, Presidents “having” cigars with 20-something White House interns. Tale as old as time.
The fact that,” there is nothing faster than Sam Adams in the mens room at city hall” is disturbing enough.
Sam Adams does not have the moral fiber to do the right
thing and step down.Kissing a under age intern?We want him making social decisions on our behalf.It’s not his orientation it’s his thought process that’s criminal.
Mr. Humphries —
Nothing would please me more than to personally be the one who hands you your pulitzer prize, followed perhaps by some sort of Nobel Prize peace or what ever else can be arranged.
I would like to see to it that when you are awarded your prize that it is in some way larger or shinier or just simply better than the one Nigel has.