Adams stays

After initially hearing the news yesterday reported by several media outlets (including Willamette Week, The Portland Mercury and The Oregonian) about Mayor Adams deciding not to resign, I didn't want to write anything more. 

In my previous post, I articulated some of the difficult ambiguity that most of us have felt involving the scandal, and how neither resigning nor staying would feel perfectly right. I've also really appreciated hearing from readers that the post struck a chord and that many felt the same sense of wrestling with the issue.

In the time since the original story broke, it has been interesting to see who has taken what side, or neither. The Oregonian and Just Out (!) were calling for Adams to resign practically before the story even broke. The Oregonian in particular surprised me with how sure they were of themselves. There seemed to be very little deliberation, or deliberation done very rapidly.

At the same time, I had to cringe a little at the spectacle of a press conference supporting Adams with Pink Martini frontman Thomas Lauderdale standing before City Hall in his precious little bowtie, or Storm Large joining him to shout out expletives before belching out Tammy Wynette's "Stand By Your Man". 

But this morning's Oregonian editorial pushes me more into the pro-Adams camp than any of Adams' actions could do to push me away. The Oregonian editorial board not only calls Adams's decision a case of voting "for himself," but their essay also accuses those defending the mayor's right to continue in office as doing so out of fear or self interest. They eschew any notion that Adams staying is in the city's interest and anything other than his own. Which is at least indirectly quite insulting to anyone preferring to greet the mayor with forgiveness.

"Some are from organizations that have benefited financially and politically from Adams' presence in City Hall. Some don't want to land on Adams' bad side by failing to back him. Others...are willing to overlook unprofessional behavior, unethical campaign tactics and perhaps even criminal misconduct if necessary."

In other words, the Oregonian editorial seems to say, if you are standing up for Adams, your own interests and motivations are morally empty as well. This is the key part of what I take issue with (although I mean no disrespect to these editors personally, of course). Apparently only they have strong values - provided, of course, we're not talking about forgiveness or taking the long view of things.

If one of these editors had been George Washington's parent when he chopped down the cherry tree, George would have been doing ten to life in a British stockade for juvenile delinquents.

I can see the board initially calling for Adams to resign. But attacking those who don't assess the situation similarly or draw the same conclusions is as Machiavellian as anything Adams did during his days as Vera Katz's fearsome chief of staff.

If the paper is right and we're all being too gracious in letting our elected Mayor begin his term, then a recall effort will provide means for removing him from office.

But in the meantime, after coming down in the middle with regard to the Adams scandal, I can't help but feel that the righteousness of his critics has pushed me away from their arguments.

UPDATE - additional thoughts after the initial post: While this isn't first and foremost an issue of homosexuality but rather lying to the public (or perhaps now the legality of whether kissing is sexual contact, given the admission that Adams and Breedlove kissed before Breedlove was 18), I wonder if part of what's inspiring the Adams-should-resign camp, along with a strictness about the mistake-free sanctitude of the office itself, stems from the fact that this affair forces us to think more explicitly about Adams' being gay. Ironically, being out can have the effect of making one's orientation a relative non-issue. To many people, myself included, it's still a non-issue. But I think there may be others out there who were only willing to go along with an openly gay mayor as long as he did it relatively discreetly. But in this case, I'm not accusing or explaining; I'm asking. I know I support Adams in not resigning, but the fallout of what it means is something to consider pondering.

Comments

[Peter S.]

Well put.

[ellen]

Brian
With all due respect, you cherry picked the quote from the Oregonian. It read: " Others consider Adams' leadership indispensable and are willing to overlook unprofessional behavior, unethical campaign tactics and perhaps even criminal misconduct if necessary." I'd say that pretty fairly describes the attitude of many who voiced support of Adams on this blog. How is that attacking them?

Likewise, how can you disagree with the editors' statement that some of Adams' supporters "are from organizations that have benefited financially and politically from Adams' presence...." and others "don't want to land on Adams' bad side"? That is a fact of life and not a smear on their character. This is politics.

I think perhaps you may have over-reacted to what the Oregonian editorial actually said. It boiled down to "no one is indispensable" and "A city that cannot even imagine better leadership than this is in deep trouble."

[Dave]

Ellen,

With all due respect, I agree with Brian that those quotes you just re-iterated sound very derrogatory and insulting towards anyone who sees the situation differently than whoever is writing. Sure, some of the people supporting him may stand to benefit from him staying politically or financially - however, that's a pretty small minority of the general population.

I think the comment "A city that cannot even imagine better leadership than this is in deep trouble" shows an incredibly one-sided view that completely fails to take into account Adams political service - that is, that comment is based solely on the fact that he had sex with an 18 yr old and lied about it to the media. If a 40 yr old person having sex with an 18 yr old and then lying about it to the media (or comparable event) completely disqualifies them for any public service regardless of their prior experience, service, education, etc, we had better start kicking a lot more people out of office, I would imagine. I feel it was just as unethical to bring up Adams' private life during the campaign (especially since as far as they knew, and as far as we still know, nothing illegal happened) in order to attempt to smear him.

I understand the tension here, and I understand that a lot of people have a moral disagreement with what Mayor Adams did - I agree, he shouldn't have lied about it - but the simple fact is, *every single person does stupid things, whether you know it or not*. If your acceptance of a person is solely based on how squeaky clean their image is, I feel like you're missing most of what's worth seeing in a person.

[Chris Smith]

I have to dis agree, Brian. Sure, the Oregonian may be a bit off-base with their editorial of today, but now all of the sudden anyone that doesn't support Adams is a homophobe of sorts, and "has a problem with his Gayness"? What about a 42-year-old public servant (gay or straight) hooking up with a 17 year old in the restroom of City Hall? I think that's perverse, and not a gay issue.

Here's my issue with Adams: He sold out the gay community himself by accusing Ball of "playing the stereotype that gay men can't be trusted with young boys"...and Sam appearantly...is, well, a gay man that can't be trusted with young boys. AND HE LIED. And smeared Bob Ball in the process.

I'm gay, and I certainly don't support Sam on this. I feel betrayed.

[dennis]

Thank you for taking a much more open approach to this issue Brian, I have no problem with people who post on your blog or comment on the papers with their own opinion that they have if he should stay or go, but for me, I always take issue and have a lack of trust when I see a journalist voice their opinion as much as what has happened at the Oregonian. It makes me wonder what is in it for them? Has sales gone up for them because we all know the newspaper industry has been limping along for years.

And this opinion stands for all journalist, I am a fan of the NYT, but I have found myself at times wondering if their bias point of view is too much.

Plus I love the all holy card that seems to be thrown whenever personal life is forced to become public...I have yet to hear anyone else that is calling for Sam's resignation to openly talk about their own sex life...I again see no issue in the lying due to the fact that our private lives should be respected and if this was an issue then, the city council would of done something about it because my guess is that many of them were aware.

[k.d]

I have to disagree Brian, this doesn't have anything to do with his homosexuality. People in this city have seen Sam with a partner over the years, talking about GLBT issues and how discrimination affects him personally.

And I'm a gay man, so should my comments be called into question - let's put that out of the way.

What I'm struggling with is that his supporters focus on the fact that he lied about sex, as if that is what this is all about.

For a lot of people who believe he should go its not that he lied, but how he lied. Pressuring someone to lie for him, calling Ball's motivations homophobia, using the very important role of a mentor as a cover for the lie, repeatedly lying to the press rather than taking the high road, so mishandling the ensuing confession that it's created havoc in our city and among our GLBT community (he's not stood up to call for calm for Marty Davis' publication Just Out, who is facing damage to personal property and personal threats for her editorial), there's serious questions about his hiring of the reporter who had stopped pursuing the story, people have even questioned if his attempt at appointing Leonard as police commissioner might be part of this.

These are all legitimate questions.

Just a little final remark here from me on this: You used an exclamation mark after 'Just Out' as if there aren't more than a few people in Portland's LGBT community who feel Adams should go as well, or that an LGBT newspaper shouldn't be calling for the resignation of an LGBT politician. If nothing else its a good demonstration of a community that is willing to what it thinks is the right thing, over what is the politically expedient thing to do.

Also you characterized both The Oregonian and Just Out's call for his resignation as "practically before the story even broke" - even though they both made their call after both the Willamette Week's report and Sam Adams own news conference confirmed the facts of the incident.

For a lot of people, it was all we needed to know.

[ws]

From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to keep the mayor on. Of the qualified candidates for the office, his civic ideas and enthusiasm were the best. If he toes the line with his personal life for the duration of his term, the city will be fine. If his behavior continues to include more, highly controversial activity associated with his personal life, the city will languish, spinning its wheels, going nowhere.

Portland knowingly elected a gay person for mayor. The city knew he wasn't married. Seems like it was also known before he was elected, that he had a long term partner. The kind of person that would have a long term, reasonably stable relationship, is the kind of person the people voted into office...not the kind of person that would go around dating 'barely legal'.

Adams is known to be a politically shrewd guy. As this controversy is revealing, maybe, too shrewd for most people. It's a little hard to know what to make of his apology. It could just be more velvet tongued BS.

[Robert]

Not to be too picky about this, but of course the George Washington story is a fable made up by Parson Weems, with no basis in fact, but designed to keep little kids from telling lies(!) Guess Sam's mom didn't read him that one. Nonetheless, I still find myself (slightly) on the side of him staying in office, at least for now. He is a very talented politician with many good ideas for the city. Assuming no crimes were committed (lying while not under oath isn't a crime), and if he can demonstrate that he can still lead after all this, he should probably stay. When the inevitable recall vote is taken this summer, I'll make my final decision.

[dennis]

6 months is a long time away for a country that has such a short term memory.

[MarkDaMan]

Chris Smith quote: "He sold out the gay community himself by accusing Ball of "playing the stereotype that gay men can't be trusted with young boys"...and Sam appearantly(sp)...is, well, a gay man that can't be trusted with young boys."

An 18 year old is not a young boy...a 17 year old is not a young boy. Though my 'behind closed doors life' is nobody's business, I was sexually active long before 18...at times with people much older than 18.

Robert Ball was negligent by not going to the Oregon State Attorney General. If he had concerns that Adams was having sex with an underage teen he should have first gone to the AG. Allowing the AG to proceed with an undercover investigation would result in a better chance at uncovering the actual truth. I do not think Ball acted in good faith anymore than Adams did, and it makes me even more embarrassed, as a gay man, about this situation.

With the issues facing Portland, Sam was the best person two weeks ago, and he still is. I'm glad he is getting back to business, and when the next crisis happens people will come back to their senses and know the real crisis facing us is not Sam's sex life, but our ability to keep a roof over head, and decent food on the stove.