Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 12, 2004 3:53 PM. The previous post in this blog was 49 ways to screw up Portland. The next post in this blog is Not enough information. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Comparative fault

Which of these two is worse:

A politician who tried to force himself on a girlfriend while in college 28 years ago?


A newspaper that spends months on the story, only to publish it just days before the ballots are mailed out in that politician's re-election bid?

Comments (27)

Jack, it is a good question. What's your point? Do you have a problem that the incident occured 28 years ago? Should we have an indifference to priests who are accused of sexual predation over 35 years ago? Are you accusing the newspaper of bias? Would you prefer that this came out after the election? Are you upset that the Oregonian that came out for Kerry is showing its balance by digging up dirt on a Democrat?
Mover Mike

I find the timing interesting from the standpoint of the alleged wall of separation between the editorial side and the news side of the paper, given that they recently endorsed Ameri.

Mike, honestly, I'm just asking the question. I don't have a firm answer.

Many years ago I worked playing in a band and being a bartender for folks who partied at the University of Arizona. Unlike many of them I had to work in order to pay for my college courses.

For many of those "beautiful people" going to college was party time away from their folks. To base an opinion on something stupid college kids did is ridiculous. Being in a band I not only got to see how sleazy the male college students could be, but I also had a very good view of how sleazy all the female students could be.

Very few of them were angels or Satanists, but many of them did make silly, stupid mistakes. I'm going to vote for David Wu despite his stupidity as a college student.

I wrote this earlier today on a national political blog:

Yes, the Oregonian broke a story on David Wu today that is disturbing. At this point, I'm not sure what I am going to do with my vote.

However, I am outraged on the timing of the story. The Oregonian has been "working" on this story since May, with the last stated effort being an August 1st letter. Why did they sit on this story for 3-6 months until after they endorse Ameri and within one week from the date ballots are mailed?

If they had broke this story three months ago, Wu could have been "encouraged" to drop out and an alternative candidate could have been found. Instead we are left with the choice of a near-felon and a fanatic. I will probably vote for Wu and hope that he wins and can then be forced to resign so that we can have a special election early in 2005.

Jack, if you don't have a firm answer to this question, I fear for your soul. Why don't you ask N**** if sexual assault is worse than publishing the truth about the assault in the weeks before the perp's election day. What do you think she'd say?

This is yellow journalism - it may be true, it may be important, but the choice to publish it NOW rather than 3-6 months ago appears to be overt attempt to affect the outcome of an election. So which is worse - a 26 year old sexual assault allegation or yellow journalism? I'm glad the answer is simple for you, Al.

Fear for somebody's soul? On this of all questions? Sir, head for the picket lines at Planned Parenthood. Your righteousness will fit right in.

The story is so vague, do we even know what, exactly, happened? Were there charges filed? Do I really need to know about this?

I'm cancelling my subscription to the Oregonian.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Oregonian was trying to build a case for sexual assault where the woman never filed a formal complaint or pressed charges and is still unwilling to talk about what happened. Meanwhile, the perpetrator stonewalled and refused to talk about it at all. That meant they had to take particular care to get the story right.

If that sounds familiar, that's exactly what happened in the Goldschmidt case. The Oregonian held off too long on that one and got scooped. They weren't going to let that happen again.

Put Wu down as Goldschmidt's latest victim.

And Packwood's.

Good point.

Timc wrote the following. My comments are between the blockquotes.

I wrote this earlier today on a national political blog:
I thought all politics were local, but since you wrote stuff on a "national political blog" obviously you're some sort of really important guy...without a web address.
Yes, the Oregonian broke a story on David Wu today that is disturbing. At this point, I'm not sure what I am going to do with my vote.

Everytime the Oregonian "brokes" a story on anything it is disturbing. By the way, since you don't know what you're going to do with your vote could you give it to me?

However, I am outraged on the timing of the story. The Oregonian has been "working" on this story since May, with the last stated effort being an August 1st letter. Why did they sit on this story for 3-6 months until after they endorse Ameri and within one week from the date ballots are mailed?

Become a media critic. Maybe it will take your mind off the silly things you are outraged about.

If they had broke this story three months ago, Wu could have been "encouraged" to drop out and an alternative candidate could have been found. Instead we are left with the choice of a near-felon and a fanatic. I will probably vote for Wu and hope that he wins and can then be forced to resign so that we can have a special election early in 2005.

"A near felon and a fanatic"??? Man, that sounds like political hyperbole. Then you say you're going to vote for a guy so he'll have a chance to resign. Are you auditioning as a comic for the "Tonight show"?

I wonder what convoluted logic means.

I'm sorry, but you don't keep trying to build a case and finally decide to write about it four days before ballots are mailed. I realize the heat the O took for sitting on the O-endorsed Packwood and this probably is a direct reaction to that. But the Packwood story developed in the final month, while a read of the article indicates that most of the Oregonian work on this occurred in the spring and early summer.

Why October 12th? There can only be one conclusion - and that is to impact the outcome of the election.

To TimC. I agree with you about some of what you point out. Right before California's recent election when Arnold was elected, the LA Times ran a story that was clealy intended to influence the electorate not to vote for Arnold. Patterico's Pontifications (a blog who fact checks the LA Times constantly) was able to show that the editors had run that anti-Arnold story in order to influence voters. The New York Times has also pulled the same kind of stunts and the Oregonian has done it for years. It's just that the Wu story was done so egregiously and incompetently that it draws more attention than I think it deserves. The story about "the story" was on all the local news shows, for goodness sake, and I just think the whole thing was just one more of the Oregonian's despicable attempts at voter manipulation.

But that is what newpapers have been doing for over a hundred years.

John Hays,

Are you the same John Hays who thinks date rape is just a "silly, stupid mistake"?

Sorry, those aren't my values.

As I see it, my choice is between someone who shouldn't be eligible for federal office and someone that I disagree with on almost every issue. And it is the Oregonian that put me in that position. I believe that if the Oregonian had BROKE this story when they should have, I would have a choice between a Democratic candidate that I could support without reservation and someone that I disagree with on almost every issue.

So yes, I am OUTRAGED about the Oregonian's duplicity in the timing of the story. If you think my outrage is silly, there's nothing I can do about that.

One significant difference between Arnold's election and this story is that there were a number of people coming forward trying to tell their story about Arnold's behavior. The LA Times did not sit on this story for 3-6 months. Everything happened very quickly.

In this case, no one was trying to get their story to the public, instead the Oregonian heard some rumors and decided to pursue them. Then they waited and waited to publish the story.

Someone should send this URL to Michael Arietta-Walden, the paper's ombudsman, and see if he'll examine the timing honestly or merely be the apologist for the paper that the previous ombudsman was.

I don't believe I ever said that 'date rape is just a "silly, stupid mistake". Then again, as a person who at one time in my life had to actually collect verfiable evidence that would hold up in a court of military law, I believe that if an accusation is made then there ought to be some physical and forensic evidence that a crime actually occurred and that that evidence points to at least somebody who had the ability to commit the crime.

In this case all I see is somebody saying they are sorry and another person saying they won't talk or produce evidence and others who immediately made this or that decision without knowing all the facts.

"Show me the evidence".

I'm sure the public editor has his response already first-drafted. There was a box in the middle of the "jump" (continuation) of the story in which the editors noted that they knew they were going to p*ss a lot of people off. They're ready for the pile of mail they're going to get.

I hope some of you can pause your Oregonian-bashing long enough to remember that during the 3- to 6-month period that the Oregonian was working on this story, David Wu's office was denying the allegations. In fact, Wu's attorney apparently hired an investigator to refute them even though we now know that his client knew they were true all along.

This incident occurred 28 years ago and may not be relevant to his qualifications for office. Wu's conduct this year in trying to cover it up--including his still refusing to the talk to the Oregonian reporters who are the most knowledgeable about the allegations and events surrounding it--is very relevant.

Comparisons to Goldschmidt and Packwood are inappropriate. Their sex crimes involved the misuse and betrayal of the power of office.

I do not excuse the conduct alleged of Wu. But the higher standard to which we should hold politicians should apply while they hold office. I know I did a number of things in college which I don't particularly regret, but which I would be appalled by in, say, Jack Roberts.

The references to Goldschmidt and Packwood relate to the Oregonian's embarrassment at being scooped on those stories as a probable explanation for why they went with this one, even though neither of the two parties who had direct knowledge of what occurred were willing to confirm what happened.

I agree that how David Wu behaved as a 21-year-old college student should be judged by a very different standard than how Goldschmidt behaved as mayor or Packwood behaved as a U.S. Senator, and is of questionable relevance in this election.

How he responded to inquiries about this subject over the past six months while he was a congressman, however, is very relevant.

Why should Wu respond to 28 year old rumors, which is all they were when the Oregonian was researching them? Does he have a responsibility to HELP the Oregonian destroy his career? His denial is not nearly as relevant as the Oregonian's timing in reporting the story. Why couldn't they have run a story in July, indicating that Wu denied the allegations? Why wait? Sorry, but the answer is simple - to influence the outcome of the election.

If you are comfortable with an elected official who has his lawyer hire an investigator to look into charges that official already knows to be true, then allows the lawyer acting on his behalf to tell a newspaper that the allegations have been investigated and there is nothing to them, then by all means vote for Wu.

The very fact that Wu was denying the charges while the woman in question refused to talk required the Oregonian to keep checking on the story until it was satisfied it had enough to publish. Wu could have gotten this story out months ago if he had gone public when he was first asked about it. He chose to stonewall, gambling that the Oregonian either would never get enough to publish or that it wouldn't come out until after the election. He lost.

Now it is up to the voters in his district to judge Congressman Wu both on his conduct 28 years ago (which I personally don't find particularly relevant) and his conduct in response to the inquiries by the Oregonian (which I personally find troubling).

But since I don't live in the First District, I don't have to make that call.

The Oregonian's knowledge of the Packwood story most certainly did not develop in the last month before the 1992 election -- The Oregonian had assigned a reporter to look into the sexual misconduct allegations nearly a year before the election. The reporter was not even informed of something her editor knew: that Packwood had kissed one of the paper's own Washington correspondents after an interview in his Senate office. The paper's conduct in that case was completely political and totally inexcusable.

Gee, releasing the Bush DUII story on the Friday before the election was no big deal, but a newspaper releasing the story on the allegations against Wu is outrageous?

I guess that (D) behind his name makes a difference doesn't it?


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Chloe, Pinot Grigio, Valdadige 2013
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir 2013
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio, Friuli 2013
St. Francis, Red Splash 2011
Rodney Strong, Canernet, Alexander Valley 2011
Erath, Pinot Blanc 2013
Taylor Fladgate, Porto 2007
Portuga, Rose 2013
Domaine Digioia-Royer, Chambolle-Musigny, Vielles Vignes Les Premieres 2008
Locations, F Red Blend
El Perro Verde, Rueda 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red 2
If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend

The Occasional Book

Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 377
At this date last year: 237
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics