I think the part missing here is that, as Kulongoski was in a position to know Goldschmidt personally, did he ask him about it ("it" being "why aren't you running again? what truth is there to these rumors?")?

I've been prodded about this issue, there are a couple things I know to be true, wealth and power generate rumors and the powerful with something to lose are very close mouthed about any kind of scandal they might be involved in.

I don't care what position you hold in State government, if you are not in possesion of facts, you sure better keep your peace about the most powerful person in your venue. Not to mention, relating such hugely damaging stories without facts to back you up would be the height of irresponsibily.

All that said, I know exactly nothing regarding Gov K and Goldschmidt.

Kari, I could go along w/you but for one tiny teeny problem - the rumor turned out to be FACT.

Compound that fact with the after acquired knowledge that Goldschmidt systematically paid tribute to the young lady for years afterwards and you have a potential issue. Add to that the incestuous nature peculiar to Oregon Power politics amongst the powerful, liberal and democratic elite and you have the potential for cover-up of huge proportions.

Tell me Kari, would your outrage be similar had it been a powerful conservative republican governor and the person in question was a certain junior senator from this state oft times pilloried on this site? Please be intellectually honest Kari.

Kurt does not believe his own argument -- such that he even makes one. He's trying to pile as much innuendo as he can into one paragraph hoping the general seeminess of it will have an impact.

He presents no actual evidence or facts except one unconnected lurid detail that has been reported and re-reported for years. Basically, it's a layman's attempt -- and not a very good one -- at a political hatchet job.

Smarmy hatchet jobs are pretty much all that's left of the Republican "party of ideas."

Kari: Are you a guy or a xxxxxxxx? It's hard to tell from your picture and the spelling of your first name.

[Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

Paddy: Are you an ass or a hole? It's hard to tell from what you write.

The Governor's recent actions are not helping things. Rather than simply dealing with the accusations head on, saying something that make's sense and moving on, the Governor has taken the track of running off the stage when he gets questions on the issue.

Whether he knew or not, his actions make him look really guilty.

The Oregonian is NO friend of the governor - we all know that. And Lars Larson is just a mouthpiece for neo-con nut cases.

This is just republican smear attacks - it's all they know how to do.

[Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

A savant when judging two or more bullshitters in a sniff test.

So's my chihuahua.

Troll.

i agree that gov. kulongoski needs to deal with the issue and not walk off the stage when asked the question. a simple straightforward denial and "next question, please" is the way to go.

Steve Duin is a sportswriter turned columnist. Neither one really requires having any credible source for a juicy piece of writing, just someone to hang the story on.

Its pretty clear a lot of people, many of whom came to power and prominence as a result of their association with Goldschmidt, had more than just rumored knowledge that Goldschmidt was a child-molester. It was not in their interest to share that information, so they didn't. On the other hand, they certainly weren't afraid to crow about Goldschmidt's talents and accomplishments.

Now those same people who benefited from association with Goldschmidt's successes are being asked to explain how they missed this major character flaw. I don't think that is unfair. If Kulongoski had tied his star to Frank Ivancie, he wouldn't be governor today. And, if Goldschmidt had been outed as a child-molester earlier, its not clear Kulongoski would be governor today.

Trying to pass this off as "swirling rumors" is totally disingenuous.

Not really. That depends on whether you think Bernie is a credible source. And if Kulongoski has heard this rumor before, do you suppose he might take Bernie's embellishments as nothing more than Bernie being Bernie?

I am trying to figure out what Kulongoski was supposed to do with this? Call Steve Duin?

Paddy,

You are, indeed, an asshole. We are trying to have a conversation, please let us do so. Might I suggest Loadedorygun.net as a place where your level of dialogue might be appreciated.

All,

The Governor's press shop has misstepped on this one. It doesn't matter why the issue came up again this week, it did. Instead of storming off during a press conference on another issue, Kulonsoki should have handled this like Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams handled the recent unfounded rumors against him: hit it head on.

The Governor should just deny this rumor, point out how little credibility that Leonhardt has and how many unfounded rumors he circulated back in the day, blast Lars for using his microphone in such an irresponsible manner not only on this situation but in so many for so long, and move on. In two days, not a single reporter would want to talk about this again. Ever.

But no, let's not talk about it because Lars filed the complaint... well, it just ain't working.

Frank, I respectfully disagree. Getting in a pissing contest with Larson and the other rat-wing loonies would just give this non-story legs.

This is just more of the same standard sliming tactics we have learned to expect from the Rethugnicans.

He knew or he didn't know. His actions make him look completely guilty.

[Editor's note: Offensive language removed.]

Meaning little could be done to diminish Goldschmidt's lock on state political access and power.

There are many people, like Kulongoski, who helped build and perpetuate that power. And they benefited from doing so. What happened to anyone who did disassociate themselves from Goldschmidt? They are not in the Governor's chair.

If Jamais had promoted his friend's rapist for election as governor and then served in his adminstration, I am not sure he should be held blameless.

Im confused here guys, Steve didnt get his information from a single source....he received it from a 9-page affadavit:

In June, Leonhardt submitted a nine-page affidavit to the agency. "At their request," he said in an e-mail, "I took and passed a polygraph exam called a 'confirmation test' based on the information in the affidavit."

The core message of that affidavit hasn't changed in the past four years: Many people kept Goldschmidt's skeleton locked in the closet for his advancement and their own, Leonhardt writes, "but none more so than Sheriff Giusto and Governor Kulongoski through their passive complicity and moral abdication."

In addition he follows up with Leonhardt and quotes him. Hardly shoddy journalism. In addition, to your question of whether this is news or not, Steve answers it in the third paragraph of the story:

At the end of a 51/2 month investigation by Oregon's Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, Giusto has been informed the agency has "substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state."

The news is that this investigation just closed. At least thats how I read it....and it is pertinent and newsworthy.

At the end of the day, the question isnt really whether 'K' knew about it in 1991 or if he believed the rumor....I think the question would be if, as AG he should have done his due diligence to pursue this. I think that Steve's column is fair in the sense that if he did know, and was told about this, did he merely ignore (as rumor, which is understandable) it, or did he hide it? That doesnt seem clear, since 'K' isnt really speaking.

You may not like that he wrote it, Kari, but it doesnt strike me as an 'agenda' piece, as you suggest.

Kari,

I know many women and a few men who thought Mike Dukakis was a hunk.

Also, I wonder if Paddy is the same person who used to call my cable access program to ask if my co-host and I were cross dressers. I think it has something to do with compensating for feelings of inadequacy - or possibly projecting a fantasy.

Rob Kremer quotes and thinks he's done something. What he has managed to do is make it clear that the accuser gave the Gov third hand information, that is rumor, that is all it qualifies as. 'A' told 'B' and 'B' told 'C'. Since 'A' claimed no personal information, but 2nd hand to him, there seems to be a real problem with 'C' making accusations of a particularly nasty nature.

Once you reason backward from something established as fact it is pretty easy to make rumors look more persuasive and fact oriented than any reasonable person would at the time.

I'd be pretty hot if I were the Gov, though maybe handle it differently.

What's the rub here! Even if what Leonhardt says is true, at best it suggests he was passing on another rumor. Around that time I heard a rumor that the reason Goldschmidt wasn't running for a second term was that he had an extra-marital affair with another woman and had coerced her into having an abortion. I shrugged it off as unfounded dirt someone wanted to circulate. So, if I were a govt. official then, ( I wasn't), would I have been obligated under law to turn report this to law enforcement? I have been in a professional role to be a mandatory reporter (child abuse, elder abuse, etc.) Even then I was never required to report rumors.

Duin's column was indeed "over the top." Kulongoski denied knowing about Goldschmidt's sex abuse THREE YEARS AGO. Story over. Duin brings it up again simply because Leonhardt recently wrote a long letter to some state agency, offering lots of details that he has recently remembered. Why should Kulongoski respond to that sort of idiocy--especially in the middle of a terrorist exercise in which all involved, including the press, are supposed to be acting like it's the real thing?

Kulongoski scoffs at ethics complaint Posted by The Oregonian October 18, 2007 12:07PM Categories: Politics, Top Stories Gov. Ted Kulongoski said today there is no merit to an ethics complaint against him.

Earlier this week, conservative talk show host Lars Larson filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar seeking an investigation into whether Kulongoski, a lawyer, lied to the public when he denied knowing about former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt's sex abuse of an under-age girl before it became public.

Goldschmidt's confessed decades after the abuse occurred.

Kulongoski had avoided answering questions about the complaint all week - including walking out of a news conference Wednesday. But Thursday, while in Portland as part of the Topoff counterterrorism drill, the governor addressed reporters on the topic.

He apologized for walking out on reporters, then said he planned to cooperate fully with any Bar investigation. He said it would be inappropriate to comment on the complaint because it is part of an investigation.

"As you can imagine this is a difficult time for me and my family," Kulongoski said. Asked why, he said, "It's just a personal issue."

As he was leaving, he was asked whether Larson's complaint had any merit. "None," Kulongoski replied.

Anybody who doubts that at least 40 people around Goldshmidt knew about this wasn't living in this town at that time. If it started in the 70's and wasn't exposed in major publications 'til the 90's, LOTS of people were pretending not to know. This was a much smaller town in the 70's, and even the 80's. Too many of these guys spent too many nights drinking together at Frank Peters' little place and the VQ over those years not to have known about it. Come to think of it, didn't Peters go up for doing and pimping teen girls? Neil should have gone up with him, if there was any justice.

Then, too, what about the girl's mom? Word is that she countenanced it in order to keep her job on NG's payroll. Stinkeroo!

So, who exactly said she was actually raped/abused in the first place and didn't just have consentual underage sex?

My guess is that most people didn't know before 1990, but a lot probably did know after 1990. Goldschmidt didn't disappear after he left office in '91 and wasn't exactly dissed by the establishment. The progressive politician became Mr. Corporate whore lobbyist who worked for Aaron Jones, Weyerhauser, SAIF, etc... His name was still in great demand for endorsements, fundraisers, etc... (For full disclosure, Goldschmidt came out to The Dalles in Oct. 1996 to raise money for the first candidate I worked for, Kevin Campbell for state senate who narrowly lost to Ferrioli. I had heard the rumor about Neil in '95 as an intern in the legislature, but without specifics, and thought it might be just a smear to scare him away from a senate campaign.) Neil probably could have carried on in that fashion, but he became much more visible in '03 when he popped his head up to facilaite a PGE buyout (with his wife on the investment board helping him) and was nominated for the State Board of Higher Ed. That became too much for the likes of Vicki Walker and Willamette Week. Goldschmidt used poor judgrement (again) in reappearing as a public figure, as did anyone who knew the full story but who still remained closely associated with him.

This whole thing is moronic, IMHO. I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Democrats/liberals, but this kind of blatant partisan smearing is one of the many reasons I refuse to join the Republican Party. Their grasping at straws just shows how irrelevant and intellectually/morally bankrupt so-called "conservatives" in this state have become. Sure would be nice to have an opposition party that actually stood for something, had some good positive ideas, and didn't stoop to lowest common denominator smear tactics. Throwing poo like a pack of rabid monkeys is not going to get Republicans elected statewide.

In certain occupations, reporting suspicion of child abuse is mandatory. Obviously being a political speechwriter isn't one of them. But did no one at the girl's school or elsewhere suspect anything? Or were adults not as aware of such possibilities back then?

Where were the parents of the 14 year old? Oops, they aren't public figures, and if Lars or anyone else went after them that might look bad.

This strikes me as scandal mongering. And for those who say "but there is an affadavit", are 100% of affadavits completely true?

Has no one ever gotten into trouble for an affadavit which turns out to be hearsay?

Somehow "small talk " while someone is pouring wine doesn't strike me as proof ---even if it is in an affadavit.

I agree with "And the late '80s & early '90s wouldn't be the key time anyway -- if there were people who knew in the '70s close to the time it happened and didn't step up to call N. G. out and make sure the girl got help, that's where I'd see culpability. "

As I recall the 1970s, Goldschmidt left the Mayor's office to work as a Cabinet secretary in DC. Was there any attempt by the parents to get help for the girl while he was not living in the state? What was the status of statutory rape prosecutions back then--was there the equivalent of a Special Victims Unit in Portland? Was CASA organized back that long ago? Was there any attempt to investigate whether he had done wrong while he was out of state?
Or is that asking for a level of seriousness not wanted by the "we heard rumors at a party" crowd.

You're all dancing around the main concern:

A person running for and elected as Governor is held to a higher standard of leadership than are most other occupations. Leaders, and aspring leaders, do things not because they are legally required to, but rather, because they see it as a responsibility.

We expect more of people striving for the highest levels of leadership. You can say it isn't relevant, but it is.

Gov K better address this quickly or it will hang around and bite the D's come next year.

I didnt say that the affadavit was true or not. My point was that this wasn't Steve merely calling this gentleman and facilitating a quote, he cited his source (the affadavit) and gave both the gentleman and 'K' and opportunity to respond to the fact that "At the end of a 51/2 month investigation by Oregon's Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, Giusto has been informed the agency has 'substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others or for the laws of the state.'"

and that the "The agency believes Giusto may have lied about, among other matters, his knowledge of Goldschmidt's sustained abuse of the teenage girl while Goldschmidt was mayor of Portland."

Sure, you may think that its one source, but in reality, its two with an opportunity at a third, if 'K' was willing to speak. Characterizing this as shoddy reporting is way off base, IMHO...and with the latest developments, maybe Steve wasnt way ahead on this....maybe he was right on point, considering.....

Now, 'K' responds with a very curious release and comment in regards to the investigation....this makes me wonder if Steve maybe is on to something after all.

As for, why would 'K' appoint him as chairman of the campaign? Simple, because it would get 'K' votes....unless, Kari, you really believe that politicians always think ethically when it comes to getting elected.

Can we start moving onto issues that will affect the entire state?

I met Governor Kulongoski many of times and he is a very honorable man. Maybe not the best governor we have had: but one who really cares about the people of the state and making sure the right legislation is passed for the state. A tireless worker on many issues and truly a caring human being.

I love how Republican hack job sorry for an excuse for a party start bringing nonsense up again. Hell why don't we ask any members of the watergate scandal still alive to fess up more. Wait we can even ask Oliver North and Clarence Thomas for more information about Iran Contra or sexual harassment.

That was in the past and we don't have any proof or knowledge of the Governor knowing anything and he denies knowing anything. Ted has been a man of his word consistantly and we should respect what he has said. I love when a political party is hurting and has nothing to contribute to real issues or the direction of the country because they messed it up. They start writing hack journalism from twenty years ago that does not have any bearing on the course of the state or the nation.

Why don't you grow a pair of balls and admit RON Saxton lost because he ran a John "Kerryesque" Campaign with nothing positive to contribute to the state. The president and the Republican Congress from 2002 ruined the country, our reputation as a county, and are running for the hills.

Or you can continue to lose registered Independents like myself, because you have nothing to add to real issues for real people. One more thing you guys (aka republicans) have become insane. The definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Stay on the issues

Thank you, A registered Independent

Kari proves yet again, the glaring fact that the collective stupidity of the liberal, Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty.

It's also obvious that Kari has no problem with pedophilia and child molestation as that's EXACTLY what Goldschmidt did BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, so the fact that the corpulent Kari is all angry that THE WORST GOVERNOR IN OREGON HISTORY (not really a stretch for ANY Democrat to achive) is being called on what he knew, well, my above statement stands.

Nobody ever wondered if Mike Dukakis ever had an affair.

Hey now Kari, whatcha talking about? I think he's Hot Hot Hot! But not as Hot as Al Gore. :)

Lars Larsson and Steve Duin would have more standing if they likewise urged Bar complaints against Dennis Hastert and the GOP leadership aware of Mark Foley's depradations. As it is, it's typical It's OK If You Are Republican double standards.

As to whether Kulongoski knew, I don't know, but until we have better evidence than this, we must take him at his word.

Many people kept Goldschmidt's skeleton locked in the closet for his advancement and their own, Leonhardt writes, "but none more so than Sheriff Giusto and Governor Kulongoski through their passive complicity and moral abdication."

I'll pose a question that, surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else ask yet:

If Leonhardt knew that the story about Goldschmidt and the babysitter was true, why the hell didn't HE tell the police???

Could it have been because he didn't know if it was solid? If that was the case, why should he expect Kulongoski to report it to the authorities?

Would you or any rational person go to the cops and tell them: "Somebody told me that somebody told him that somebody I know is a child molester"? If you did they'd laugh at you.

I don't know what angle(s) Leonhardt is working, but my gut tells me he's not simply acting as a public-spirited citizen.

"Throwing poo like a pack of rabid monkeys is not going to get Republicans elected statewide."

LOL! Great line, Jack -- wish I had thought of it. It falls trippingly off the tongue.

The rabid monkey routine won't get them elected nationwide, either -- not anymore. Americans have had a bellyful of Rovian slime tactics.

Of course when your party has no ideas and no leadership and can't even offer basic competence, what else can you do?

I think you are missing the point, Kari.

The issue isnt whether he knew or not, the issue is, that as AG, did Kulongoski have a responsibility to pursue the allegations...considering this was someone in elected office. Maybe he had a conflict of interest and chose to ignore it, but again, as a private citizen, thats your choice, as AG, I dont know if you have the same ability to choose. And further, if he heard of these rumors, he had a responsibility to check on those before appointing him to any role on his campaign, or risk egg on his face (which appears to be the case now). If he swept it under the rug, thats on him, and he deserves any and all criticism from Steve, or anyone else....and no cries of "foul."

Furthermore, while Kulongoski is clearly an ambitious politician, I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.That, all by itself, tells me that Kulongoski didn't think he had a definite conclusion on the truth of whatever rumor(s) he may or may not have heard.

Again, im surprised as to the naive nature to this statement, considering how involved you have been in campaigns and the relative consistency of news that has come out about politicians and their scandals....not to mention, it seems clear to me that Kulongoski doesnt want to talk about this, in spite of the fact that if he truly didnt know, what difference would it make?

"As you can imagine this is a difficult time for me and my family," Kulongoski said. Asked why, he said, "It's just a personal issue."

Really, how is it personal? How is it difficult? If you didnt know.....what difference does it make....but if you did know and now its coming out, how could you really look at yourself in the mirror.....

And for the record...as a voter, I feel its more important to hold the people who I believe have the right ideas about the direction of my state and my country accountable, maybe even more so than those I dont see eye to eye on, because more so than just voting for these people, I am trusting that they stand by their words and their ethics.

So if I seem to be harsher on people like Merkley, Novick and Kulongoski (and Kari, to an extent since he does have a voice when it comes to politics in this state), its because my expectation is not to be asked to give a pass, or to follow blindly and ignore any warts....which is what many of these politicians and commentators are asking for. Lay it to me truthfully and ill be the judge, and if you dont want to play the game that way, I will demand that you do, or risk losing my vote and support.

This column strikes me as ignoring the issue and attempting to coat it with another accusation...in spite of the fact that recent actions (ie: the 'K' press conference today) clearly changes the tone and newsworthiness of this story.

Would you or any rational person go to the cops and tell them: "Somebody told me that somebody told him that somebody I know is a child molester"? If you did they'd laugh at you.

It is easy to spread rumors of the "we were at a party and we heard..." variety.

But anyone who has ever witnessed a traffic accident or anything else which involves police action knows what it involves. Police get the statement in writing, and it could eventually go before a grand jury. Questions can get very specific--in reporting a hit and run, for instance, it could be "what road were you on, what did you see, what did the vehicle look like, what road did it turn on?", that sort of thing.

We are told there is an affadavit. When was it made, where, who was present (lawyers? law enforcement?) and under what circumstances?

A comment above says "The victim had a lawyer and a therapist who was willing to testify in a lawsuit to the damage she had suffered from Goldschmidt’s abuse."

Was this after the statute of limitations ran out? Why did no one swear out a complaint before the statute of limitations ran out? Is it the fault of people at a party that there was no complaint sworn out? According to which legal authority?

And who in law enforcement would consider it probable cause if an accuser who is not the victim of the crime said, "As other guests approached the bar, I went looking for Kulongoski. I dragged him to a quiet spot in a corner behind a couch. We sat on the floor for privacy and I told him everything I had heard from Giusto no more than ten minutes earlier."?

Or does someone actually think they can shame a political opponent without actually talking to the authorities?

dartagnan has it right. Kari's also correct. Steven Duin is making a lot of assumptions by blindly accepting one person's word on this.

As a social worker, I do not believe even if Kulongoski had asked NG about the rumor he would have received an honest answer. Who are we kidding?! I, too, hold the source with a lot of suspicion. Why bring it up again unless it is to juice up the low ratings of an horrific talk show host or increase readership? It's done. It's over. I just see it as another use of distraction to not focus on the real issues such as health care, the war, corruption, and so on. I have no opinion on Guisto other than I feel sorry for the guy if what is said is true and if it isn't, I would feel even worse for this character assination attempt. Enough!!!

You are at a party, and a trusted friend pulls you aside, and tells you that the host of the party just confirmed to you for a third time that your close business associate:

1) raped a 14 year old, 2) had paid her off, 3) told you the names of the lawyers who negotiated the pay off, and 4) explained how the host came to know this information (because the host has a relationship with the rapists ex-wife, and the settlement required opening the divorce decree.)

An equally valid description:

"At a party, someone you worked with, repeated a story he had been told by the host about how the ex-wife of the former Governor, Transportation Secretary and Mayor of Portland, who he was involved with, had told him a story about how Goldschmidt had molested a 14 year old girl 20 years earlier and was now being sued."

And Kari - Steve Duin is a columnist, not a reporter. You ought to recognize the difference.

If Leonhardt really was Kulongoski's "trusted friend", it was obviously a mistake on Kulongoski's part to trust him.

Why didn't Leonhardt report Goldschmidt to the cops?

That is one question. The other question is why was he repeating the story to Kulongoski? I can't think of an answer to either question that doesn't damage Leonhardt's credibility.

My point regarding 'K' being an AG dealt more with the fact that as an elected (or appointed) official, who hears of this....dont you have a responsibility to reach out to your sources and determine if this has merit?

Even if he didnt believe the rumors, doesnt he have some sort of responsibility to tell his "friend" that this is being said about him?

Thanks for the lessons regarding AGs Kari, I am and was aware of the role that AGs have....still doesnt get to the point that, based on A) his reaction at the Press Conference and B) his statement today...there is something to be said and argued when it comes to what he knew and what he did with it.

No different than when republicans hid Foley's misdeeds even though they had a responsibility (as elected or appointed officials) to shed light on it.

You want to say "it was a rumor, everyone spreads rumors" but if you are a teacher and rumors spread that a student is planning on shooting up the school, do you dismiss this as a "rumor" or do you pursue it and determine the merits?

'K' wasnt a private citizen, with access and the means to be able to decipher fact from fiction. If he didnt bother to confront the person and ask him point blank, instead choosing to ignore it, thats on him, if he did know and in fact was aware of it, thats even worse. I think its fair to say (and clear based on the recent coverage) that he did neither. Now, the real question then becomes, is that the type of public official you want?

For the sake of my post can we assume everything we know about Goldschmidt and the "girl" is true. That he molested this child through his charm and power.

My question has always been. Where was her MOTHER!? She seems to be the one who has escaped all scrutiny. She is the one who got a job with the Foreign Service and became an Ambassador, right? Did I misunderstand something in the story about her mother getting a good Foreign Service job?

I am appalled by this whole thing. But mostly I am appalled by her mother not defending her child and protecting her against anyone who would sexually molest her. As a parent I can tell you if anyone did this to my child I'd be telling the world. I would have shouted it from the roof tops till someone listened and took action.

I care a little less about whom knew what when. I think the mother is the one we should be putting up on the pole and asking her why she allowed this to happen and why in the H-- didn't she tell someone, anyone before now. And why isn't she defending her child today.

And this heartless women still refuses to talk. Why go after the Governor or the Sheriff? Why not go after the mother who did nothing to protect her child.

Hey - Mad as hell - you are RIGHT ON!

Whether Ted knew or did not know about Neil's criminal acts isn't the point here. It is obvious that Lars Larsen hates Ted Kulingowski and is determined to get at him any way that he can. Lars is very vindictive and hates Democrats and lies repeatedly to sway his audience. It is a shame that they even allow persons like Lars on the radio to spew their hate and devisiveness. If you listen to him for one day you can get him on many falsehoods.

I had not thought about the "dad" - never heard him mentioned - ever, ever. You are right - a shotgun in my basement would have been put to good use if it had been my Dad.

We all know we cannot prosecute based on rumors (yet). But the parents could have and should have come forward, what they knew was NOT a rumor.

I would not know this Leonardt guy if I tripped over him - but shame on him for not telling someone who could help this girl when it would have mattered! Before her life was destroyed.

And what about all those "Irvington" liberals who hung out together - why did none of them say a word.

Damn them all for this. Not the Governor and Not the Sherriff!

A commenter wrote: "Also, I wonder if Paddy is the same person who used to call my cable access program to ask if my co-host and I were cross dressers. I think it has something to do with compensating for feelings of inadequacy - or possibly projecting a fantasy."

[offensive language removed. -editor.]

...come on! Please lighten up, already.

I'm already decided on this issue of GG and GK (remember I'm a sniff-test Savant).

Kick me off this thread please: Simply let me know if Kari is a dude or a [offensive language removed. -editor.]. (Kari: Please answer and I go bye-bye forever.)

Thank you.

This whole Kulongoski rumor smells like a coup brewing to me. Remember what happened in CA to Grey Davis? Someone, possibly not even from OR seems to want Kulongoski unseated. Even if Kulongoski did know, what was he suppossed to do about it?? All of this happened at a time when Americans did not want to know about or hear about the foibles of their leaders. This was the case until a few crazies with wild imaginations went after a sitting President for a BJ in the Oval Office that was none of our business. The proper place for airing this misbehavior belonged in the sanctity of the family and their clergy, not on our Public Airwaves.

OK, Teddy has basically had Neil's hand up his back for his entire career and has known him for 20+ years. Neil decides to make him a judge and then set him off on his political career culminating in governor. Neil, of course, being a string puller and Teddy being Neil's lapdog doesn't want to displease him.

So, Teddy hears rumor about Neil being a pedophile and being a responsible citizen and judge to boot, put his hands over his ears and talks loud not to hear anything.

Neil's happy and Teddy gets his jobs. As a favor, even after hearing about Neil and not investigating, he decides to promote his good buddy / godfather to the state board of higher education.

Ted is one heck of a guy and this whole thing stinks. Don't confuse legal and ethical.

Yes, Sexton is probably just as guilty.

What Ted knew about or did not know about is really none of our business in the long run. It was a long time ago and we have better things to do in our lives that scream at each other and hurl obscenities. Reading through these posts make me realize that all of you are making mountains out of molehills and just are a little bit too uptight about all this. Now I know why some people just do not want to invole themselves in any kind of politics - no one likes to be screamed at, have obscenities and hate words hurled at them, or have obscene and unecessesary(sp) words to read through - especially in the title.

Riught on Eric J!

And for those of you who think this is the most important possible subject to be discussing, I hope you will do something productive with your energies. If you really care about abused kids and not just about steamy scandals, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) can always use volunteers.

To date, there's no evidence that Kulongoski knew a damn thing about it - other than the say-so of one guy.

Let's be clear. . .it's the say-so of one guy who a state agency believes to be credible, after spending five months investigating his allegations against Guisto. That's a step below definitive proof, but a step above unproven say-so.

Furthermore, while Kulongoski is clearly an ambitious politician, I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.

Of course he didn't know for a fact whether it was true or not. The question is, did he try to find out? Or did he turn a blind eye -- as so many others probably did -- because he stood to benefit from Goldschmidt's power and influence? Let's remember the context of Goldschmidt's role up to the day this crime became public. He was the godfather of Democratic politics in Oregon, still pulling strings, raising money, and boosting careers until the WW story hit the streets.

The big question for me isn't whether Kulongoski knew for a fact that Goldschmidt was a child rapist. Of course he didn't know. The question is: At what point do you distance yourself from someone who you have repeatedly heard extremely negative rumors about, even though it might hurt your own career? At what point do you ask that person, directly, about the rumors? If Leonhardt is being truthful, Kulongoski must have faced these internal nagging questions when he nominated Goldschmidt to the State Board of Higher Education. They are tough moral and ethical questions, but they certainly should not be dismissed out-of-hand, as many partisans on this blog seem to be doing.

Also, Kari, I'd really like your answer to one of the first posts: If this accusation was against Gordon Smith, would you be similarly outraged if Duin wrote a column about it? Or would you echo and amplify that accusation on this site? To those of us who don't spend all of our time in a partisan bubble, intellectual honesty is important.

Well, at least you're being honest, if not particularly intellectual.

That's the difference between a columnist and a blogger.

There is no difference between a columnist and a blogger. Columnists have never been held to any journalistic standard other than to be entertaining and interesting. And I guarantee you the Oregonian's only standard is that he attract readers who their advertisers want to a reach and that he not offend any of the publisher's buddies at the Multnomah Athletic Club.

Kari Chisholm Kari Chisholm I think there is something even bigger out there then what is happening and I think the reporters are on to something. Giusto is on the hot seat right now and there is a reason for that, what I’m not sure. Kulongoski is being asked question now and all but admitted guilt when he ran off that stage, that says to me that he knows something and people are probing for a huge story, what story I am not sure but this thing are heating up. People and I mean people who know something are being questioned, if the heat gets to hot people will talk. Rumor or not the Gov knows something and so do other people, the question is can people keep there mouths shut until this blows over or will they break. If Giusto goes down, he will take a lot of people with him. Kari, rumors are started because they tend to have some truth to them, rumors don’t get started just because, that is why they are rumors. Think back to when you were in highs school and all those rumors running around, there was always the ones about who slept with who, and at the 10 and 20 year reunions you found out that they were true. When there is a rumor at work about a layoff, is it a rumor? The company calls it cutbacks, was the rumor true? Ted was very close to Neil close enough to know that it wasn’t a rumor and that’s why he ran off that stage.

I can't think of a single politician who would willingly associate themselves with someone they knew to be a child molester.

There are plenty of politicians who would not pay much attention to rumors about an "affair", as the Oregonian termed it, between a politician and a young "woman". Just the way they weren't too concerned about Packwood's groping of women. These were no different than the consensual relationship between Clinton and Monica. Boys will be boys.

In that frame, this story was interesting only in regard to what it meant for Neil Goldschmidt's future, whether it would become public and what that might mean for his friends. When this story first hit, there were people who started to step up to defend Goldschmidt. They didn't really recognize at first he was a child molester, not a just another guy who couldn't keep his fly zipped.

rumors are started because they tend to have some truth to them, rumors don’t get started just because,

"Rumor has it ...."

"Where did you hear that rumor, Dick?"

Dick, "I just started it."

That is an actual conversation, with the name of the political leader changed to protect the less than innocent.

Only complete fools believe there has to be any truth to rumors, especially in political circles. There just has to be someone who benefits from telling (an re-telling) the story.

Packwood grouping of several intelligent, well connected and powerful women is not the same as NG having sex with a 14 year old girl.

Packwood groped a lot of women, it was some well-connected, powerful women who finally came forward to call him on it.

I do not think any Oregon Politician would associate themselves, their families nor their supporters with anyone that was a known Child molester.

Oh no, not once it was known ... there aren't many politicians associating themselves with Bob Packwood either.

Jenni, Thank You for clarification on the appt. of the SOS if the Governor was incapacitated. Actually, I have heard that before, but I completely forgot about it.

"Jesus Christ, people. Check your FACTS please."

OK, already, I messed up. After he gave up at the state legislature and couldnt function in a real world job, Neil made him insurance commissionet and still pulled his strings.

"The surefire giveaway that Kulongoski didn't know anything solid was that he appointed Goldschmidt to the state board."

Please, look up hubris, once they get to this level they think they can get away with anything. WHy do you think Bernie has a death grip on that job after all of the crap he has pulled. Neil wanted to be respectable, so he told Ted to put him on the board of higher education. Meanwhile, Diana, the wife, had, ahem, a few ethics issues after being appointed to OIC with some of Neil's friends. Also, don't discount Ted's string pulling to get Steve Goldschmidt a job with PPS tha was rather expensive.

Ted does what Neil tells him to do. Yes, Saxton is probably as guilty. Heck, Sam and the rest of City Council are probably still lunching with Imeson, Neil's former partner.

Go ahead and ignore it if you want.

Correct, he couldn't win election or get a prodcutive until Neil picked him up and gave him another govt job. So Neil has been holding his hand for a long while.

I agree with the analogy to Hastert/Folley. Same difference.

Also agree with the questions about the parents. Who were/are they, and how have they benefited? Sounds like the mom pimped the daughter to NG in return for career favors. What about the dad? If it had been my daughter, NG would at least be singing soprano, if not pushing up daisies.

Anybody who wants this laid to rest needs to get on the path of "truth and reconciliation". The bottom line is that without a full exposure and discussion of the truth, any attempt at reconciliation is futile. Public interest in this is not going to go away until there is some sense of truth and justice. Right now, it still stinks to high heaven.

Steve, your facts are decidedly incorrect. Kulongoski was for years (including while he was a legislator) the senior partner in the best employment law firm in the state. He gave that up job to direct the Dep't of Insurance and Finance, ran for and won the AG's position, ran for and won the Supreme Court position, and ran for and won--twice--the governor's seat. In no way has Goldschmidt "been holding his hand." In fact, Kulongoski fired Goldschmidt's wife from the OIC.

PS to Steve--Speaking of not being able to hold a productive job, how about that Fred Leonhardt? AS far as I can tell, he hasn't held a job since he worked for Neil Goldschmidt as a speech writer when Goldschmidt was governor. That was 20 years ago.

Kari, your motives are right but your facts are wrong.

By "gave up at the state legislature and couldn't function in a real world job", you actually mean - after Kulongoski unsuccessfully ran for Governor in 1982 and for the U.S. Senate in 1984. Right? ....................

I was at a fundraising event in 1980 for Kulongoski for Senate, and remember very well Ted for Gov. 1982. The latter was an example of why it is smarter to talk about ones self instead of just talking about the opponent--Ted had an opportunity to appear on national television (some network speaking to major candidates around the country) and spent more time talking about what was wrong with Atiyeh than why Ted should be elected. Friends of mine bailed on the Gov. campaign in 1982 because they thought the hotly contested Cong. campaign against Denny Smith was more worth their time. Denny won that election by several votes per precinct (not the overly popular guy he thought he was).

In 1984, the US Senate nominee was legislator Margie Hendricksen.

"Kulongoski fired Goldschmidt's wife from the OIC."

After he hired her, fully knowing Neil was on Texas Pacific's payroll.

Steve, once again you have failed to get your facts correct. Kulongoski did not appoint Diana Goldschmidt to the OIC "fully knowing Neil was on Texas Pacific's payroll" as you stated.

From Willamette Week, July 26, 2005: "On Oct. 29, 2003, Diana Goldschmidt and the rest of the OIC voted to give a subcommittee the right to invest $300 million with Texas Pacific. Later that very same day Neil Goldschmidt received a call from David Bonderman, a Texas Pacific partner. Bonderman told him Texas Pacific wanted to make a bid for PGE and asked Goldschmidt to help."

Mad as Hell is completely correct. If the mother sold her daughter out for money and employment, no wonder the poor thing has mental problems. She was sexually exploited and betrayed.

Without the girl's testimony and help of her parents, charges couldn't be brought. All the supposition is groundless when you ignore that fact.

It's terribly sad. Remember that the only reason the sexual abuse by priests finally surfaced was after several boys in the same Boston parish started committing suicide when they reached 12 - 14. At that point, their parents probably regretted accepting hush money from the church to cover up the crime.

Who is Dayle Williams -- in the context of many meetings with then-Gov Goldschmidt?

Given the developments with Guisto over the last day or two, are you still so certain to call "bullshit"? By now, you gotta be wondering a bit...

Obviously. But Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent and it seems to be increasingly verified as accurate. I know Kulo is "your guy", but at some point, I'd hope that you might start to wonder just a little bit...

"Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent "

What bothers me most about this story is the people who say we should take Leonhardt at face value because they say so.

He was a speech writer who apparently talked to some people at a party one December. As far as I can tell, that is all we are supposed to need to know about the guy.

I'd like to know more: What he did before he was a speechwriter Why he left the speech writing job What he is doing now.

This is about a crime which happened in the 1970s and discussion about it later.

Comments like "seems to be increasingly verified as accurate" really bother me. Even if I had been living in Portland (never lived there) it is very unlikely I would have been at the famous party--not the same social circle. But this story is so thin it sounds like we should all believe certain accounts of this unless we are giving absolute faith to "our guy". We are all supposed to take sides about a story which seems driven more by hearsay than fact. Why?

I have known people who have been victims of rumors in the past--often rumors which turned out to be not based on evidence. But in this case, I am supposed to believe a guy I never met about a crime in the 1970s which was not discussed until much later? Standard of proof doesn't matter because Neil committed a crime, no one wants to talk about what year the statute of limitations on that crime ran out, where the parents fit into this story, or anything fact based like that.

A former speech writer spoke to someone at a party, that is all the evidence we should need?

Is there no more important issue? Sounds like scandal mongering or someone with an agenda to me.

Hey LT -

You make a lot of good points, and in general I agree with many of them. I understand your trepidation.

Let me start by making clear what my intent was with my posts earlier today... while I personally believe that Kulo knew more than he says, I don't KNOW that. So my intent was not to convict him here... it was to prod Kari a bit, who is a TOTAL KULO HOMER, and ask if he could still objectively look at new evidence as it becomes available. I don't know if that's possible, when the title of his post declares "bullshit".

Moving past that... as far as "Leonhardt's story has been the most consistent", I'm taking that straight out of mouth of the WW reporter Nigel Jaquiss, who won the Pulitzer in 2005 for breaking this story in the first place. He's the guy who TODAY I heard say that there has been ONE person who's consistently been accurate and unflinching and that's Leonhardt. Even in the presence of some pretty intense scrutiny and pressure. To me, Leonhardt's statements are passing the "good ol' boy smell-test."

On top of that, Leonhardt submitted to, and passed, a lie detector test. Everyone else is running away from that. I'd love to see Guisto or Kulo step up to the plate and strap on the electrodes. For that matter, I'd like to see Kulo not run off a stage when asked about this issue. The fact that he did so, REALLY says something to me.

Leonhardt's on one side. On the other side, no one is submitting to polygraphs and in several cases, won't even sign an affadavit. I think that speaks volumes.

You ask (in regards to Leonhardt): What he did before he was a speechwriter Why he left the speech writing job What he is doing now.

I'm not sure what these questions have to do with anything? Please enlighten me. If the answers come back as something you find distasteful, would you try to discredit him based on that? Why else would you ask these?

I understand your plea of "is there no more important issue?". Because we have a lot of things going on in Portland that I think need more critical thinking than has been applied in the past. But personally, the fate of streetcars, street renamings, Columbia River crossings, etc pale in comparison to the rape of a 14-year old and subsequent cover-up by the highest members of our elected gov't...

What bothers me most about this story is the people who say we should take Leonhardt at face value because they say so.

Actually, I take Leonhardt at face value because a state agency spent five months investigating the issue (with regards to Giusto) and not only found Leonhardt to be truthful and credible in that case, but found other witnesses that corroborated his story.

Is it possible that Leonhardt told the truth about Guisto and lied about his interaction with Kulongoski? Yes. Is it possible that Leonhardt misremembered the extent of his interaction with Kulongoski? Yes. Is it possible that Kulongoski misremembered the extent of his interaction with Leonhardt? Yes. Is it possible that Kulongoski lied about what he knew and when he knew it? Yes.

At this point, we don't have any answers about Kulongoski's involvement in this. But good Democrats will insist that we look into it further, even if it turns out Kulongoski did know something and the whole situation harms our party. The rape of a 14 year-old -- the only fact in this case -- should be enough for everyone to leave their party politics at the door.

Personally, I'm a Kulongoski fan. But if it turns out that he was told that Goldschmidt may have raped a 14 year-old -- even if it was conveyed as a rumor -- I want to know a lot more about his thought process when he appointed Goldschmidt to the state Board of Higher Ed, because I cannnot jive those two things.

Larry K, I'd have more respect for you if you called the Gov. by a nickname he has had for years: Teddy K. Kulo sounds too close to Kujo who as I recall was a fictional vicious dog. Unless you mean to imply the current Gov. is as evil as the former Gov. who turned out to be a sexual predator.

So, have you believed every story straight out of mouth of the WW reporter Nigel Jaquiss?

Not that I want to do the research at this hour, but my nagging feeling is that he did a story in the past I didn't trust. But I should trust him now? Has WW never made a mistake in any of their stories?

Yes, Neil Goldschmidt is guilty of a crime---but a crime 3 decades ago. The victim is now close to middle age, but we're not supposed to ask the role of her parents in all this because there are public figures who should be ashamed of themselves and nothing else matters? Why is it such a big deal now?

I asked those questions about Leonhardt because a friend of my sister became a widow due to an angry former employee shooting his former supervisor, and I don't think it is impossible that if the former speech writer left under less than friendly circumstances there might be an agenda involved.

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say there is solid, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence that Guisto and Kulongoski found out about the crime at that Christmas party where the rumor was reportedly told (polygraph or not, short of evidence it is reportedly a story)--wasn't that a party in the 1990s? Was that before or after the statute of limitations ran out?

Suppose that it is proved they had concrete evidence it wasn't a rumor, but they didn't say anything in the weeks they discovered the rumor was true. What then--disgraced, the public figures resign their jobs and leave the state of Oregon in shame? Is that what those saying this is an important issue in 2007 want?

Recently I had an argument with a friend over an email quoting Teddy Roosevelt saying English should be the only language in the US. He wrote me "The point is that we encourage second languages or that it is a practical thing to have a second language? That is true, but that discussion takes away from the point that US Citizens identify and know or learn English!"

I called him and said, "OK, we pass a resolution in Congress saying English is the official language of the US. What exactly does that do? Do we not have interpreters working for public safety and medical organizations?" He was startled because he wanted a philosophical discussion and I was concerned about the practicalities.

I think the debate over this is a debate about philosophy vs. practicalities.

I think there are more important issues than streetcars and street renamings--the war in Iraq, health care for all, economic stability for all. Suppose every public figure even remotely connected to this story "strapped on the electrodes". Is a polygraph 100% accurate? And how does that solve the problems of work, health care, the concerns of veterans and military families if you find out for once and for all that on a date certain a particular public figure found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that Goldschmidt belonged on the sexual predator list for the rest of his life?

OK, debate this philosophical question: should all rumors be believed until proven otherwise, or only in this case? Suppose a rumor is true--what steps should be taken. Should it be reported to the police or to child protective services? What standard of proof do they require?

Or is answering those questions hard work when people can just say things like To me, Leonhardt's statements are passing the "good ol' boy smell-test."

I was deeply offended back when this story broke because reporters ambushed Gov. Ted when he was leaving a military funeral. He didn't deserve a moment of quiet after a funeral because scandalmongering reporters were more important than anything else?

Larry, you said "...pale in comparison to the rape of a 14-year old and subsequent cover-up by the highest members of our elected gov't..."

Are you saying that Guisto and Kulongoski are the highest members of our elected government? Or are you saying everyone elected to high office is guilty until proven innocent?

I think the speculation has gotten out of hand. Yes, it was a tragedy that a 14 year old was raped, and had people known about it at the time do you really think Goldschmidt would have been in the Cabinet of Carter, the Baptist Sunday School teacher? But are you saying public figures knew about this during the years of the Carter presidency, or the Reagan/Bush years?, or the 1990s?, or the current decade? Where is your proof--that you believe Jaquis and Leonhardt, so everyone else should too? Ever heard the phrase "more to most things than meets the eye"?

And if I was offended by the way the reporters treated the Gov. when the story first broke and he was leaving a military funeral, does that mean I don't care a crime was committed 3 decades ago because if I worry about destroying the decorum of a military funeral?

Let's have a sense of proportion here. If you really think this is the most important story, do some research: find out the year the statute of limitations ran out, the role of the parents, why the Carter background check before NG became a Cabinet Secretary didn't find out about the crime, who the individuals were who knew about the crime before Neil G. ran for Gov. If you can't provide those basic details, I don't care if Leonhardt and Jaquiss swear on a stack of Bibles.

Kari, you were pretty tough on anyone in 2006 who didn't think Ted K. was the greatest thing since sliced bread and how dare anyone even look at the primary challengers or Ben W. for Gov.

But I agree with you on the single-source allegation.

I'm the sort of person that if a close political friend tells me something that doesn't jibe, I will check it out.

But I am supposed to believe a WW reporter I am not fond of and a former speech writer because to do otherwise is to condone the rape of a 14 year old girl and coverup by famous people?

And as for "but there is an affadavit", Al French ruined that in my eyes.

Was it OK for Al French to use hearsay on his Swifty affadavit to be in the commercial and for him to write it on a work computer because, after all, he didn't rape a 14 year old or cover it up?

Miles and Larry, if you don't like that paragraph, come up with more evidence.

Coyote, you said,

"The party that FL was at DID actually happen. The party also had BG there. The party also had TK there."

You know that because you were there? If so, how many people were there? What was the date of the party? Did you hear the rumor itself or actually see Kulongoski, Guisto and Leonhardt talking together?

Or is this just more hearsay?

It sounds like a lot of assumptions to me. But Coyote, if you were there, you can be the second source some of us are asking about. Of course, you'd have to be that source under your real name, not just a screen name.

LT asks: Suppose that it is proved they had concrete evidence it wasn't a rumor, but they didn't say anything in the weeks they discovered the rumor was true. What then--disgraced, the public figures resign their jobs and leave the state of Oregon in shame? Is that what those saying this is an important issue in 2007 want?

I can't speak for anyone else, but first and foremost I think this issue is important because Goldschmidt was able to avoid prosecution for child rape. Anyone who knew about Goldschmidt's actions BEFORE the statute of limitations ran out and didn't report it to the police (and it sounds like Guisto may fall into that category) aided and abetted Goldschmidt. In my opinion, that behavior should disqualify you from ever holding an important public office in this state. I hope we can all agree on that.

As for people who found out after the statute of limitations and didn't do anything, this is important because Goldschmidt was able to remain the godfather of the DPO until the story broke. He served on boards and commissions, he raised money for Dems, he was a power broker, and he was appointed to the State Board of Higher Education. Anyone who knew about this story and still allowed Goldschmidt to operate as he did is guilty of a serious moral and ethical offense. And I think we owe it to ourselves to figure out who those people were and make it clear that we won't tolerate Republican-style cover-ups in our party.

Kari writes: To me, that's a HUGE piece of evidence that Kulongoski did not know. One of Kulongoski's faults is that he's a pretty cautious politician. So, given that well-known caution, why in the hell would be appoint Goldschmidt to anything?

The problem with this line of reasoning, Kari, is that it only works if Kulongoski really is an ethical, cautious politician. You know him and you're willing to vouch for him, which for me carries some weight. But not enough to say we shouldn't investigate further, because your argument doesn't work at all if we don't accept that first premise. If Kulongoski isn't as cautious as you think he is, or he's willing to overlook felonious behavior for political expediency, then your argument falls apart. It's similar to someone who works in the White House who says that GW Bush is a stand-up, straightforward, highly ethical person who could never lie to the American people. Therefore, he never could have have manipulated the intelligence on Iraq, and the fact that he is an ethical person is proof that he didn't. Would you buy that argument, or ask for further investigation?

Okay LT, Miles, and Kari.

I have waded through most of the 318 pages. It is good reading. Everything that I have read there, from Fred, to Kantor, and Imeson, from Margie to Debbie and even Ginny. Every single one of them talks about Fred. The biggest criticism is that he is (or can get) "emotional".

Obviously, this rumor (and now fact -Niel-) hit him squarely between the eyes. But nobody has challenged him as somebody who is telling lies. Fred even said that if TeddyK is right (and Fred is wrong, there was no conversation, behind the couch, for 20mins, at a party with Margie, and his wife Christy watching from across the room) then why hasn't TeddyK sued him for libel, or at the bare minimum, demanded that Fred stop telling his lies, and demanded a retraction?

TeddyK's behavior speaks volumes on this topic. As do the many, many other people who spoke to the investigators about Bernie's and TeddyK's role in this matter.

<h2>Looking forward to your post on this topic.</h2>