Allegations against David Wu
The Oregonian reports today that Congressman David Wu is alleged to have assaulted a former girlfriend while a student at Stanford University. Full story here, plus an editorial note. Congressman Wu has posted a letter to voters.
Discuss.
|
Oct. 12, 2004
Posted in in the news 2004. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 12, '04
While I can appreciate the Oregonian's reluctance to again withhold a story and look foolish, the timing of this is disturbing, coming the day after endorsing Congressman's Wu's opponent, combined with the irrelevance of the claims (there is no suggestion by ANYONE that this alleged conduct has any reflection on his character or experience in the ensuing 28 years), i.e. this is not like the charges against Packwood, which reflected an ongoing behavior. This seems like a calculated trashing of David Wu.
11:26 a.m.
Oct 12, '04
Yeah, as I re-read the story, I realized that they had done interviews at least as far back as March. Why did they sit on it so long? Did the Big O intentionally hold it until just after ballots were printed and about to be mailed?
11:36 a.m.
Oct 12, '04
It's obviously an October Surprise. The O will have a hard time shaking its rep with this kind of crap. And just four days after it endorsed Ameri.
Shameful.
Oct 12, '04
So you'd all be saying these same things if it were Greg Walden or Gordon Smith we were talking about, right?
The O has gotten rafts of shit (not all undeserved) for being "soft" on Goldschmidt and missing the Packwood story. And they will get rafts of shit for this, because there's a whole lotta people out there whose partisanship has caused them to lose perspective. Perhaps this information is irrelevant to the decision to be made on Nov. 2. But as a voter, I'd like to be the one to make that call, thank you very much. The media is not in the business of withholding accurate information from the public because it might be uncomfortable.
And The O didn't "sit on it," they were interviewing dozens of people, and, y'know, reporting the story. Not the kind of story you want to rush into print and get wrong. Just ask Dan Rather.
Oct 12, '04
The timing is bad on this incident. And if it was merely allegations of groping or harrassment, I might think it was a smear campaign. But this is attempted rape. And pretty violent rape at that. Granted Wu was only 21 years old, but its still something voters need to know about.
1:38 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
The Ameri endorsement sounded to me like it was one of their "balancing" endorsements, and it didn't surprise me that they then "endorsed" Kerry. The Ameri endorsement column just didn't make much sense, and it also could have been reluctance to endorse David with this story pending. At any rate, they came up with an endorsement that didn't really add up, based on merits. Of course it also had the tone and syntax of a certain member of the editorial board who always feels picked on.
They also don't want to be scooped again on something sexual.
But what is really interesting is that in a space of three days the O has had two items that it felt a need to "'splain." This is how far journalism has devolved: the newspaper now has to "spin" its own stories and editorials. Public Editor my eye! The press has its own public relations officer.
2:21 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
Journalist--
I'd damn sure call it an October Surprise if the O ran a similar article on a Republican candidate. There's a reason it's called the "October" surprise--because that's when you do the most damage. To argue that the O was just doing due diligence on the article (for seven months) misses the larger point--they also have to be responsible about balancing it for both sides.
If the Oregonian was going to pursue such a damaging article, they had a responsibility to get it out to the voters before October 11. They know as well as you that this kind of allegation will affect voters far differently right before an election than if it appeared a month or two ago.
There's no way to spin it--it was grossly irresponsible.
2:48 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
Ameri re-located to Oregon from California a few years back, with the intention of running for office as a conservative Republican. She has been carefully groomed by the RNC to try to wrest a large and powerful district from David Wu. "Outing" Wu for behavior 27 years ago, didn't come from the Oregonian originally, it came from hard work by the RNC looking for anything possible to try to swing the election to Amerii.
When I hear a candidate quote Tom Delay in her ads I quiver with disgust. The apology by Wu is exactly what needed to be done. I can only hope it does not harm his chances in the election.
The big "O" stooped low.
Oct 12, '04
jesus people...27 years ago?
Oct 12, '04
Wow, this is a really tough one. Clearly there's a Republican Op researcher that's getting a gold star today. Still, it is newsworthy and they have an obligation to report the news. If only they had a track record of reporting the news.
4:09 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
"Journalist"... Of course the Big O contacted dozens of people. That's what they're supposed to do. Oh, but wait: The account that follows is based on recollections of the Stanford patrol commander, the woman's counselor, two professors... and several classmates. So much for "dozens" or "scores".
The story doesn't provide much in the way of timeline for their reporting, but here's what is there:
So... all the substantive reporting happened between May and August. They even waited so long that the key accuser died of old age. They don't need to run with it as soon as they hear the rumor (oh wait, when was that?) but they should run it as soon as they confirm it and give the target a chance to comment. No reason to wait two months after the refusal to comment.
If the Oregonian believes this is serious enough to impact the election, they should have run it BEFORE the deadline for Wu's withdrawal and replacement on the ballot. If the Oregonian doesn't believe it is serious, well, never mind.
One last thought, "Journalist". Why are you hiding behind the anonymous coward shield? Own your words. If you know something about the story that isn't reported in the O story, let's hear it.
Oct 12, '04
I miss Elizabeth Fruse.
I don't care how long ago this was or that he didn't actually get a chance to rape the girl. Suggestions that time , or that his failure to finish his assualt, somehow invalidates this are unconciounable.
I've never cared for David Wu, at varying times I thought about drafting a letter detailing my distatse with his representation, but apathy and life chores got in the way. Now I'm sure my voice would just get lost in the sea of letters I'm sure are filling his in box.
I've done crappy things, I've made mistakes and I am generally forgiving but, the violence of this encounter...
Wu doesn't deserve the prestige taht comes with being a representative. He's a bruise on the place that I love so dearly.
I will vote for him though. I don't want to lend any comfort or aid to the Bush Administration. I'll vote for him, and wait patiently for the day when I can vote him out of office and replace him with a democrat more suitable to hold the title.
4:53 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
So you'd all be saying these same things if it were Greg Walden or Gordon Smith we were talking about, right?
The O has gotten rafts of shit (not all undeserved) for being "soft" on Goldschmidt and missing the Packwood story.
I don't know about you guys, but there are times when, after hearing some other thing that Smith has done or has failed to do on "behalf" of Oregonians that I stop and think to myself "Was what Packwood did really so bad?" For all his faults, the guy was, IMHO, better than Smith from a legislative standpoint, period. Sponsoring the FMLA was a good thing. Before you scream at me, please read on. lol.
That said, I realize that people make mistakes (no I honestly don't think that Packwood's ongoing sexual harrassment of women should have gone without punishment), however I think that one mistake someone makes in their youth (21 is youth - I don't care if y'are old enough to drink. You're still a kid) should not be reflective of the person they are now. It's not something that is ongoing like Packwood's misconduct or Goldschmidt's... I don't even know what to call that... his... debaucheries, I suppose. Wu admitted a mistake and has apologized for it. The mistake was 28 years ago, for God's sake. I know some otherwise great people who've made similar mistakes but will never make them again. Testosterone and youth will do that sometimes.
Now someone may say "But you harp on Bush's Guard record." But he hasn't admitted any mistakes and refuses to admit them. You have a responsibility to own up to mistakes when you're representing a polity of any size. Not to say that this issue was pertienent enough to MAKE an issue of it, however that's the risk you take in politics. When it comes out, if it's true, own up, apologize and move on. That's the best that can be done.
People do things that are wrong, immoral, and often inexuseable. It's how they make amends for them and whether or not they've learned from their mistakes that counts.
As far as the O goes... it must be nice to pick and choose what news you report when. I don't agree with withholding news. There's a reason it's called NEWs. OK, maybe that's not why it's called news (not up on my etymology) but it makes sense to me. lol. Annnnnyway, this is low, even for the O and if this information was available to them, as Kari laid out, through August... sitting on it for two months is inexcuseable. Especially at the price of Oregon's future.
Additionally, the editorial note... You don't get to report news with a caveat!! You don't! Period! I haven't seen the actual paper version of the O today, but I'm guessing they're not on the same page (??). In this busy world, people tend to read headlines first, then decide whether or not to read the entire article (I'll admit to being one of them on a busy day). The editorial's note was a CYA on the O's part, not something that is going to be all that effective in changing back any minds that were changed in the first place. It's irresponsible journalism at its (finest?) worst.
No matter what, it can't be undone and it's not a good day for Blue Oregonians. :-/
Oct 12, '04
um . . . . . Attempted rape is something that can be attributed to "Testosterone and youth." Wow. Of course we don't know the whole story. Of course the O isn't perfect. Of course they are trying to get back in the saddle after missing the boat on so many key issues (Packwood, Goldschmidt).
But this is a story. I'm sorry, but it is. There are things that are in my past that I think, "Well, I guess I'll never go into big time politics because I don't want them to dig up all that stuff." And attempted rape is certainly not one of them. Because we should know by now that hiding stuff just isn't possible.
Do I think Wu should be booted? I don't know. I'd probably still vote for him. But the personal is the political. And violence against women is serious.
I think the Ameri endorsement was very much BECAUSE of the Wu information that they had. Not that the story was BECAUSE of the endorsement.
People are way to cynical about the way newspapers function. It's not always a giant conspiracy out to prove one particular point. It's so much more disjointed than that.
Yeah, it sucks that this came out in October, but I'm sure the big O knew that it wouldn't go over well. I mean, surely the remember the raft of crap the LA Times got for the Schwartenegger groping stuff. Newspapers WANT to be timely becuase they live in fear that they'll get scooped. And we know very well that the Oregonian is DYING for that to never happen again.
Of course I think it sucks. I don't want to give an inch to the conservatives and Ameri frightens me to death. But I've never been impressed with Wu and now I'm even less so.
5:59 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
Bad choice of words on my part. I just believe that people make mistakes - especially when they're younger. I don't believe anyone should ever have to go through an ordeal that apparently this young woman had to go through. Violence against women is one of the biggest problems in this country and we don't address it as much as we should because we've got a governement full of men (sorry, guys)! Of course I don't condone it, but it is something that - if it happened as reported - happened 28 years ago, is past the statute of limitations, is something he's sorry for, and is something that, to the best of our knowledge, never happened before or since.
Does it make me think less of him? Yeah, of course it does. Will it impact my vote? Nope. Why? It's a story with a lot of holes in it that happened 28 years ago and the guy, though backed into a corner, has expressed regret for the incident. We don't know exactly what happened and we never will. I've always been of the mind that there are three sides to every story - and in this case, I don't think we've even heard one of them in its entirety. It's not a terminable offense, IMHO, and maybe that makes me less of a Feminist than I should be, but... that's just the way I see it. It's something that was better left in the past unless it was something that someone could actually prove.
Oct 12, '04
People.
It is the Oregonian -- a newspaper which is, at the end of the day, most concerned about the bottom line.
They took some knocks on the Goldschmidt story -- deservedly -- and here they were handed the one story guaranteed to spike their presence in the community.
Sex, violence and politics.
It is entirely conceivable to me that they had this story ready to go in August, but the number crunchers said wait.
In a round-about-way, this story reminds me why I am grateful for BlueOregon -- more REAL news, more quickly, and more subject to instant critique than anything else available.
C'mon people.
Its the Oregonian.
Oct 12, '04
To whom it concerns, I think Wu should get the boot. As a leader on Congress he should not be having this on his record and be making those big decisions. It is not right and he should be held accountable for his actions. This is also a great opportunity for Goli. If I was her, I would use this dirt against him in everyway possible. With three weeks remaining until the elections, during the up coming debates she should use it. Goli as a woman naturally will and will win. Even though if this dirt has not arisen, she probably would have won anyway. This almost guarantees a for sure win.
9:31 p.m.
Oct 12, '04
27 years ago. Allegations. "Having this on your record." That's complete and utter bullshit. This is your typical let's throw shit and see what sticks. If you're swayed by this, you need your head examined.
Oct 13, '04
This is the payoff for the Bush Supporting Oregonian Publisher going along with the editorial sections selection of Kerry. Give me Wu, I'll give you the Kerry Endorsment.
Oct 13, '04
The thousand points of fight seen in the Gang Of Psychos (GOP) lies compounds the problem of setting priorities for slaying them.
Liars Larson contributed (in-kind value: $10,000 ?) radio broadcast airtime for three hours of GOP lies against Congressman Wu yesterday, and today Liars broadcast false charges "there are allegations of rape" in the story, where The Oregonian comported itself to print "allegations of assault."
Take action: Call Liars programming (503.417.7575) and email Paul Allen (vulcan.com) to say Liars lied and must retract his false charges. o Report Liars false broadcast to the congressman's campaign. o Because the campaign is for federal office, and Liars is on public broadcast air, (contrast with internet, which is voluntary 'listening'), Liars broadcast crime is actionable under F.E.C. regulation (esp. McCain-Feingold provisions), more than F.C.C. Aim the complaint accordingly.
<hr/>In wider scope, Liars Larson contributed production and broadcast airtime, (in-kind valuation: $10,000 ?), today to Congresswoman Hooley's challenger Jim Zilch or Zero or Zomething like that. Liars lied that he offered Congressman Hooley equal time, when her campaign office states he did not. The GOP 'free airtime' amounts to dollars the candidates would otherwise have to collect and spend to be broadcast, and is thousands of dollars of campaign contributions the campaigns are legally required to report -- from Liars, and which 'everyone has gotten used to because Liars and Lamebrain have been established themselves doing it,' and has been illegal (unreported contributions) all these years.
Inasmuch as Liars has expended over $100 (for example, one minute on-air phone call) lobbying state officials on legislation (including in the Capitol) during the current term, Liars is a state lobbyist who must register and report his spending to the state ethics commission, (ORS 171.740 - 171.756). He might have registration waiver as a 'media employee in the normal course of business,' (ORS 171.735), but he violated the waiver's conditioned requirement that "such persons engage in no other activities in connection with such legislative action," when he speaks and caucusses and dines and drinks with, and lobbies, outside of his media job, sometimes charging appearance fees, among state officials, as he has boasted on-air. Liars Larson has illegally failed to register as a lobbyist, while arguably being required to, for years.
Take action: File citizen complaint with state ethics commission. o Discuss it among ourselves -- Blue Democrats -- raising awareness of the law and the lawbreakers.
<hr/>In even wider and ephemeral scope, the broadcast media deserve examination and review for cause in them to effect changes in human brain cells, and thereby cognition, and thereby behavior, as is being discovered and shown in contemporary research with MRI brainscan technology. Broadcast law and regulation should reflect and include understanding of human body (brain) effects of broadcast communications.
Take action: I'm working on it, I'm working on it. It's a lot to write. I can get it to you later. Help...
<h1></h1>Oct 13, '04
In another facet of The 'O' treatment of this -- and I think the media mania over it is more relevant to measure and discuss and set votes by, than the 'it' itself, (it's not about Representative Wu's wooing incivility, it's about mass media's power-throb demonstrating thought control and how people get ideas in their head) -- occurs when we read Editor Sandy Rowe's sidebar in the Oct. 12 frame-up of the story. "(She) believe(s) candidates ... should expect their past to be scrutinized. The Oregonian ... routinely examine[s] the backgrounds of major candidates."
That sounds like a lie, when a few weeks ago, Kitty Kelley published a book attesting that Dumbo the Flying Baby Elephant Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David during Poppy's term about 12 years ago. And The 'O' never "scrutinized" it one ounce, not one gram, nevermind "routinely," nevermind "(we) publish rather than withhold information voters may need." All the investigative reporters must have been assigned on dead-end's elsewhere that there wasn't one with the time for a call to the Bush scam-paign seeking 'confirm or deny' content ==> voters may need to know Bush snorted cocaine not long ago, or he didn't -- which is it? Without evidence of other said-and-done scrutiny, Editor Rowe claims a frail truth, or lies to keep her job -- which is it?
The closest thing to a citation I saw was in The 'O' book review of Kelley's book, with a toss-aside line that 'the book describes past drug use by Bush.'
Uh, scrutiny under a free press published that Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David while guarded by his father's Secret Service detail, not 'past drug use.'
The sense of subscriber (and Portland) reaction is that reporting the story hurt The Oregonian's future saleability more than it hurt Congressman Wu's. In the marriage of The Oregonian and Ameri interests it is difficult to say which one stooped to the lower one's level. Isn't she on Liars Larson's slate, too? I'm sure not long ago I heard Liars lie for her.
<h1></h1>Oct 20, '04
Once a rapist, always a rapist. Why should Oregonians vote for another sexual predator in congress?
If you have watched and listened to David Wu, you will notice he has no regard for anyone's opinions except his own. Different arena, same behavior. If David Wu wants it, the hell with you.
You can bet the woman he attacked in college hasn't forgotten it. Why should we? Some crimes last a lifetime.
11:46 p.m.
Oct 20, '04
Once a rapist, always a rapist. Why should Oregonians vote for another sexual predator in congress?
I'm going to regret dignifying this with a response, but.... I'm gonna respond anyway.
In case you weren't aware, we live in a great place I like to call AMERICA. In this country we are INNOCENT until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.
What Wu did or did not do 28 years ago is something that can never be proven one way or the other. If, in fact, he did do something as reprehensible as attempting to rape someone, then Stanford did not do their part to represent this young woman.
Unfortunately, in the 70s, this sort of thing was swept under the rug much more easily than today and it's still pretty damned easy to sweep things like this under the rug, depending on one's circumstances. If that truly was the case, due process was not served and, because of the statute of limitations on this crime, he will never pay any penalty. Well, unless he loses in two weeks. However, because he was never tried, we cannot convict him. It is not our right nor is it our place. Go ahead and cast your vote for someone other than Wu (assuming you're in his district), that's fine - but don't accuse someone of something which you cannot prove. It is unethical and, frankly, makes you look like an ass.
We have this terrible habit in this day and age to try and convict people in the media. The media does not help with this by any means. It is not the media's responsibility to symbolically lynch someone. It is the media's responsibility to report news and facts as can be proven in a timely fashion. They are part of the checks and balances of this country and, unfortunately, they dropped the ball about 30 years ago - somewhere after Watergate when they realized that scandal sells newspapers (tv shows, news broadcasts, etc.).
It is no one's right to convict David Wu nor anyone else of a crime unless they are part of a jury selected to hear their case. Period. It is never our right to try, convict, and execute someone - let alone do so based on insufficent evidence based in hearsay.
<h2>If you do not like David Wu, fine. If you do not agree with his politics, fine. If you believe that any alleged misbehavior (which, to some extent, he has admitted to) 28 years ago means that he is guilty of some present-progressive crime, then by all means, believe that. However, it is irresponsible of you to accuse someone of something of which you have no real proof - especially in a public forum. Kind of like the Oregonian, now that I think about it. Perhaps they've got a job for you somewhere.</h2>