Maybe nobody knew about Neil Goldschmidt's "private" crimes for certain - but many, many knew enough to be suspicious

If someone in Portland knew about it before the statute of limitations ran out and didn't do anything, that seems like accessory to a felony.

But when the story came out some people went overboard and acted as if any 1986 volunteer (anywhere in the state) who didn't know about the story was somehow complicit. Think about it: how much do you know about the personal life of any candidate you have actively supported in the last 5 or 10 years?
And does anyone really believe Democrats in general (the volunteers, not the people who were close personal friends of the Goldschmidt family) would really cover something like that up if they knew for sure?

Or (as some of the initial coverage implied) are we supposed to credit every rumor we hear until we have evidence to the contrary? Would anyone here like to have to disprove every rumor ever told, or is there better use for such time and energy absent solid information? And if you don't think there are those who try to spread rumors about the opposition, read some of the "can't we do better in HD 13?" posted comments where some people not living in Eugene say "never met her, but if she only got 10% on the scorecard, why should we believe she should run as a Democrat?"

Rumors are not healthy. I know from personal experience that if I find out something (for sure, not just rumor) about a candidate I had supported in the past, I do not support that person unless/until the situation has been remedied, pennance done, etc. But don't tell me that just because I met Neil once during the 1986 campaign and liked something he said on a couple of issues that (living in Salem) I should have known he was a criminal. What he did was criminal. But as I have heard the couple times I have been called for jury duty, people are innocent until the evidence is presented and a court trial finds them guilty, or until they plead guilty.

I'm the grandchild of a politician and really get angry at the attitude of some people (have heard these actual words from some in the past) that the minute a person files for office they become questionable if not corrupt. Gimme a break!

I would warn you that people who turned 18 in 2004 and were thus old enough to vote for the first time were born in 1986. I would be a lot more worried if some Democrat were involved in the sort of 21st century financial shenaigans which landed Doyle in jail, or the late 1980s activities that lead to the long Post Office investigation of DPO misuse of bulk mail permit and resulting Post Office fine.

I do take the general point, however. And I think the goal should be to elect as many Democrats as possible, from "R-D ratio is lousy" districts in the mid-Willamette valley (incl. Dist. 18 and 19) to similar districts in S. and E Oregon.

And I think we should be "pro-debate". If someone likes Kitzhaber and someone likes Kulongoski, and someone likes Jim Hill and someone else likes Ben Westlund or whoever, it should be "my candidate is better because..." instead of the ol' "you must support the candidate of the in crowd without question or else". In the political sense, I think that the travesty of the 1996 Bruggere campaign (outspent primary rivals with more experience, refused to answer any questions and had debate answers like "no plan for that" or "like the answers the others gave" and then he and his wondered why so many of us chose to vote for 3rd party candidates in the fall) was more damaging to Democratic politics than a lot of other things that have happened. It took Howard Dean (and to a lesser extent the 2002 Gov. primary) to win back some of the people disspirited by the 1996 Senate campaign.

One short comment from a "Germanist." The CDU-CSU party in Germany is absolutely not comparable with the Republican party in the US. I am a voting Democrat in the US, but I can tell you for certain that many of the CDU-CSU policies are, in fact, left of the Democratic party. Schroeder was a slimy, calculating, opportunist, whose time has finally come, thankfully. It took Germany 7 years to see through his lies (many quickly forgot that he booted Kohl with the statement that the Schroeder govt. would bring more jobs to Germans - was this a sick joke??) And, as long as you are on the topic of unpalatable liberal politicians, lets consider the so-called Democrat Lieberman. It'd be nice to find out what values he believes in, if any at all.

There are two things about Goldschmidt.

First, is that he helped create Portland as it is today. There is a large group of very influencial people in Portland who either got their start with Goldschmidt or whose success has relied in part on his nod of approval and support for their projects. Those people spread across the business community and mainstream political spectrum. Their association with Goldschmidt gives any project they undertake immediate respectability and at least a sympathetic hearing from their fellow Goldschmidt accolates.

Second, Goldschmidt is a child molester.

Many of the people had inklings of the the second fact. But no one with responsibility for a local institution wanted to make enemies of that Goldschmidt network by snooping around private scandals involving Goldschmidt, whether it was the Willamette Week or the Oregonian or a local TV station. Some people in that network actively worked to prevent Goldschmidt from being exposed. Others simply provided him with the political support he needed.

So, whether they like it or not, people who endorsed Goldschmidt and want to share credit for his accomplishments also need to be asked how they missed or ignored his character flaw. They encouraged everyone to look the other way while a child's life was destroyed. And they are responsible to the extent they contributed.

Cody,

Take LT's point about historical perspective to heart.

You say the Republicans made a Faustian bargain "decades" ago but of course they've only controlled Congress for 11 years. It only feels like decades.

You say this is the worst form of cronyism, incompetence, and corruption seen in ages, but of course those of us who are older remember Postal-gate, Iran-Contra, Korea-gate, the 1974 Congressional scandals, and the granddaddy Water-gate. Rewind a bit further and review the foreign policy of LBJ and you might not be too pleased.

Where you draw the line between staying true to your values and compromising, either politically or even ethically, in order to gain and hold onto power, is one of the fundamental problems of politics. I'll play the age card and tell you that as your hair turns gray, so do political choices.

This old piece is quite a read about Goldschmidt. Boy does it ever read different now than when it was written.

http://www.wweek.com/html/leada082698.html

It's an awful lot easier to slip into dirty politics than one would expect, particularly when you are surrounded by it, when the political culture is to accept or even expect it, and when you believe your opponents are doing it, too.

I'm encouraged by this post if for no other reason than I think the public needs to continuously and persistently hold a high standard of expectations of our political leaders. Otherwise, the corruption that is so tightly linked with politics becomes accepted, expected, and embraced. We need our politicians to know that if they're caught breaking the rules, they're going down. The entire atmosphere of corruption in political circles, if left to run at will, works to groom new corrupt politicians with each new generation. As anyone who's watched the evolution of Karl Rove knows, the wrong sort of mentorship, combined with youthful drive, creativity, intelligence, and energy can ultimately have devastating consequences.

Cody-

I'm a big fan of what you wrote but I think you are missing a very important point: Politics naturally attracts ego-maniacal, self-absorbed, power-hungry, relativists.

That’s why you get Dan Doyle, Neil, Matt Hennessy, etc… involved in politics.

The same qualities that make a successful politician are the same qualities of a two-faced SOB.

The things you have outlined are not exclusive to a party but rather politics in general.

I like what Becky said but will just add one thing. Any political organization is in trouble if their members take offense to someone politely saying "sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for your guy". Seems to me that should be a warning if the person hearing that sentence can't politely say back "well, I am sorry too".

That I was called names for saying that sentence is why I spent 6 yeas as an Indep/NAV and could easily do that again. And to Cody, I will just say this: In 1982 I actually worked for a candidate whose last name was Gray. At an event he was asked a "would you vote yes or no on this?" question, and answered "Sure, if the bill was written that cleanly I would vote no, but often bills (in Congress, what he was running for) are more complex than that, and here are the tradeoffs I would make...".

Not having the volunteer or other support of some of the other candidates (multicandidate primary) he did not win but by the end of the primary the other candidates had conceded he was "best on the issues". And that is what I think is meant by gray hair/gray choices. Some things are binary--good vs. bad--and anyone with a moral backbone can publicly state what those are. But some are like the tradeoffs in legislation. The interesting time comes when people don't hear the nuance in the tradeoffs.

<hr/>