We have enough to debate in politics without rumors.

Remember those who implied anyone who had even voted for Goldschmidt in 1986 should be ashamed they voted for a sex criminal (just how many of those votes were anti-Fadeley in the primary would ruin the tabloid nature of that accusation)as if they should have known?

Remember "Well, ------ was at that party, therefore they should have heard that rumor about Neil....." How many times have you acted on a rumor without making sure it was true first? How many of us have the power to investigate all rumors--or is the circulation what the rumormongers want because they don't want intelligent discussion which might require thought?

If you know something of your own personal knowledge (from voting record to someone you know who had a messy divorce) that is one thing. But let's not make the mistake made at the end of the last century that, in 2005 terms would be "Let's not talk about any of the Senate bills the House has not acted on, let's not talk about someone quoted in the Statesman-Journal saying 'But that might be an unforgivable sin for Republicans to go against their leadership', because what really matters is juicy rumors about someone's personal life."

There are unemployed and underemployed people in this state, there are military families with a loved one overseas and some returned veterans (some healthy, some not), there are the matters of school, public safety, transportation, health care funding, and on and on. None of those will be solved by rumors about someone's personal life.

If someone could solve the problems in the above paragraph, it wouldn't matter to me if they had been married 3 times and had a child out of wedlock. Actually, there was a Mayor of the town where I went to high school who saw some problems, got himself elected, solved many of them and got a common sense city council elected.

When asked if he would run for higher office, he mentioned the number of kids he had fathered, and the fact that he had not necessarily been married to the mother of the child at the time. It got lots of publicity when he was elected, but he ran a kind of Tom Potter sort of campaign--attending local events, not accepting money outside the area, etc. He retired from city government and went back to his other career, and eventually married a local news anchor. But when he won an Academy Award, he mentioned the folks at home, watching in a landmark he had saved. His name is Clint Eastwood.

Just a warning to those who want to start rumors that locals may well consider the result more important than the politician's personal life.

I don't care if Minnis and Scott teach Sunday School and tithe to their church. They have been a disaster as House "leadership".

2 agreements with Jack: 1) The people with the power to uncover Neil's dirty secret were the parents of the girl, any reporters who actually chased down rumors, the people aware of legal papers, payoff, etc.

As someone who knew very little about Neil in the primary other than that he was not Fadeley and he was polite to people who asked him questions, I think anyone who goes after any supporter of Neil ("condoning sex criminal" type nonsense) without proving they belong in the first paragraph deserves to be shunned. There were a lot of hot debates in the general election, and both Neil and Norma did dumb things. You may recall that 2 women's groups (NOW and Women's Political Caucus, I think) split their endorsement. One supported the woman because it was time for a woman governor, the other looked at the answers on questionaire and interview.

2) Glad to see someone else has had trouble with PREVIEW.

Kari-

The local media down here in Eugene is happy to report rumors about basketball and football players regarding academic dishonesty, drug use, drunken fights at bars, etc. However, the local media did not comment about the breakdwon of Bellotti's marriage in 2003 (even though everybody knew about it) and has not commented on the current rumors about Kent (except in response to the athletic department's recent press release). It seems like a double-standard to me. Why is it OK to comment about the personal lives of student-athletes who receive just enough money to live on but it's not OK to comment about the personal lives of state employees (coaches) who are very well compensated?