Pedophile Goldschmidt's Aide Says Ted Kulongoski Knew and Helped Neil Anyway...
[Kulongoski]... knew about Goldschmidt's child rape/pedophilia and hired him anyway to head the Department of Higher Education and took him into his inner sanctum as an advisor during his first run for Governor.
But don't let that affect your vote or anything...
36 comments:
you knew that george bush lied to start the war. you would vote for him again.I hire for ability to preform. the fact that you were a pot head should be held against you forever??? dumb huh
So the Speaker of the House should resign even though he didn't know anything about some perverted emails from a Congressman (who apparently never committed a crime), but the Governor of Oregon should be re-elected even though he knowingly hired a child rapist to his staff. This kind of logic has been running our state for long enough-- Vote Saxton.
Saxton knew that Goldschmidt was a pedophile as he Neil were pretty close. This seems to go along with the common theme of Republicans giving cover to child molesters. What better reason than this to vote for true conservative, Mary Starrett.
A vote for Starrett is a vote for Kulongoski. While Ron isn't the perfect candidate who is all things to all people (who is?), I don't want to be stuck with Ted through 2010.
Click here, Starrett supporters!
anon731
Why aren't you in Iraq?
Judging by your comment, Kerry thinks you should be there.
Who knew and when did they know it?: A question Republicans refuse to ask about George W. Bush and his administration.
Saxton knew as well most likely. Anyone who was anyone in OR politics in the 1980s basically knew that at least something was going on.
Frankly, this is a non-story, the Foley case involved the actions of a sitting member of the US House, this involves the actions of a former Dimocrat governor who has long since fled the state in disgrace.
yeah, i figured saxton knew as much. i already filled in Mary for gov so it is a done deal.
VONSKI-Good post on the stupidity of voting for Mary.
Ted in Bed with Pervets?
From Gays to Teenager Molesters, it is all the same, but papers only report when republicans do bad, not demoncrats.
MARY & Supporters, if Ron loses by just a few votes (likely) and Mary actually gets more than a handful of votes and we are stuck with Ted & Illegal immigrants for another 4 years.
How does that make you feel? Ego more important? really are working for Ted? Principles more important than a different governor? Proud that gays & child molesters & other sick demented people have, do nothing Ted for another term, to do nothing about it? love being hated by all? (except demo's/pervs)
Mary needs a real good ass poking with fists, to make her humble and help get rid of ted. oh wait then she would become a democrat because of a rough life and those republicans are at fault.
I still can't believe the things some of you write about Mary Starrett. What is wrong with you? Don't you think you might be turning some potential Saxton voters away with your ridiculous posts?
If you're pro-life you should vote for her anyway. That, and she showed up to your anti-immigration rally, not Saxton.
From Victoria Taft's post:
...the statute of limitations had expired, and Neil had obtained a confidentiality agreement from his now-adult victim in exchange for cash.
The governor kept quiet about a crime that was committed long ago and was legally settled. The Speaker kept quiet about ongoing, unrestricted crime. Fundamental differences here.
But I do not approve of either man's behavior.
It's pretty simple people. There are only two horses in this race. This is a choice between Ron and Ted. A vote for Mary is a vote for Ted. If you would prefer Ted to Ron, then vote for Ted. If you would prefer Ron to Ted, vote for Ron.
Anyone who refuses to vote for Ron Saxton because he's not "conservative enough" is a either a cretin or a nutjob. You're either voting for Starrett because you put credence in demented 9-11 conspiracy theories - that makes you a nutjob - or on what you consider to be principle - you'll let a liberal Democrat who shares none of your values get elected in preference to a liberal Republican who shares 75% of your values. That makes you a cretin. A deluded cretin.
How many of you Starrett voters were railing against the Libertarians four years ago because they torpedoed Kevin Mannix? Are you so dense that you don’t see the parallel?
Anyone who believes that no plane flew into the Pentagon on 9-11 is nuts
Mary Starrett believes that no plane flew into the Pentagon on 9-11
Mary Starrett is a nuts.
I think rather than making you a "cretin" it makes you a pro-life conservative who wants to do something about illegal immigration.
A vote for Mary is a vote for Mary and her conservative values. Ron Saxton is a Portland corporate lawyer who either a) had a farm that housed illegal immigrants or b) said he was a farmer but never had a farm.
Starrett falls closer to the "Wack Job" category than the "true conservative" category...
Odd that there are no reports on what Ron Saxton knew regarding the rape of a 14 year old girl by Neil "floating shit" Goldshmidt.
You would think someone in that circle jerk would have a nice story to spew about what Ron knew if in fact he knew anything - yet to date there hasn't been a story on it only assumptions.
Mary Starrett is pro-life and cares about illegal immigration - two issues that it seems most of the people on this blog are concerned most about. So why in the world would any of you support the Portland elitist lawyer Saxton?
Kaelri,
The governor kept quiet about a crime that was committed long ago and was legally settled. The Speaker kept quiet about ongoing, unrestricted crime. Fundamental differences here
What nonsense! The crime was not "legally settled". It was never in the legal system in the first place. Where do you come up this stuff?
Goldschmidt calculatingly tried to reduce the risk of his crime's revelation with a payoff. That doesn't "legally settle" a criminal act.
Kulongoski didn't "keep quiet" - that's more revisionist crap! - he knew about the crime and chose to appoint Goldschmidt to a state position despite that knowledge. Does the fact that a "bribe" was paid make that scenario "OK" for you, Kaelri?
The "fundamental difference here" is that a person (Leonhardt) with direct knowledge of the actions and events in question has come forward to reiterate his statements about Kulongoski's knowledge of an undisputed crime. The allegations about Hastert are based on inferences and assumptions from political hacks - about actions for which, as yet, neither Foley nor Hastert, nor anyone else has been charged.
All of which makes your neologism "unrestricted crime" even more ridiculous than it is on its own.
This is just another example of the moral equivalence BS that you and your ilk so regularly and earnestly put forth. No one's buying it.
There ARE "fundamental differences here"... you just don't understand what they are.
"But I do not approve of either man's behavior."
You don't approve?
You just excuse.
I guess you think you've regained the moral "high ground" with that self-serving tripe.
Sorry.
It doesn't work that way.
Ron Saxton probably helped his good buddy Goldschmidt hide the secret. Has anyone questioned Saxton if he participated with Goldschmidt in raping that girl. They are good friends and spent much time together after all.
So it's okay to believe the guy who said Ted knew about Goldschmidt, but not the Republicans in the Senate who said they had directly told Hastert about Foley?
To quote you, Ricky - "It doesn't work that way."
Rickyragg:
You have not seen me support, defend, excuse or justify Kulongoski's actions here. Nor will you.
You're right about the settlement. I skimmed Taft's post and misread it. My mistake.
But I used the same phrase, "keep quiet," to refer to both politicians. It's what they did. The governor didn't tell anyone he was hiring a sex offender, just as Hastert didn't tell anyone that he was supporting an active sex offender in a reelection bid and allowing him to remain in the United States Congress.
I used that phrase because I doubt that the obvious criminal history was a primary factor in either case. Kulongoski thought he needed Goldschmidt's support. Hastert thought he needed a safe Republican seat. Politics came first. Revealing the truth about a legal or moral transgression seems not to have been a competitive alternative. I believe "keeping quiet" about it is how both politicians would probably have described their behavior at one point or another.
And while I am firmly convinced that the allegations about Hastert are true, I believe Hastert's case can be compared to this as a hypothetical, either way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/02/ad-challenges-voters-to-r_n_33119.html
You'll want to copy and paste this, I don't want to leave such a long post - this is from today:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HAGGARD_SEX_ALLEGATIONS?SITE=KGW&TEMPLATE=USHEADS.html&SECTION=HOME
rickyragg-
Do you even know what moral relavence is?
Now that the Hibbits poll has come out (showing Saxton down 7 points) I say you all vote your conscience and vote for Starrett. If Saxton's gonna lose anyway, why not vote for the person who you agree with anyway.
...and before another one of you crazies gives her a death threat for being on your side(which makes so little sense, she was at the OFIR rally), you may like to know 3rd party candidates didn't even show up in the data. So lay off you freaks.
With apologies to Stealers Wheel: Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
This seems to be a battle of which side is the absolutely most disgusting, amoral, solve nothing piece of crap. The parties are two sides of the same coin. I had the pleasure of hearing Lou Dobbs on NPR's To The Point with Tom Ashbrook. He has come to the same conclusion as I have, that the two parties have taken the voters for granted and need to be shook up. Since they have managed to all but eliminate the third party alternative in any debate what we should do is all go out and change our registration to independent. You can still vote for anyone you want but if 20 or 30 million voters changed registration it might wake them up to our dissatisfaction. We just might get some debate on items that need to be talked about and solved. Yeah I know that you might not be able to vote in primaries but the states might have to change that too if enough people were registered independent.
well if we take the 4 points Mary is polling and add that to Saxton, we have only a 3 point difference between him and Ted. Margin of error is 3 points.
MARY IS A SELFISH SPOILER WHO WILL HAVE MANY ENEMIES AFTER THIS, ESPECIALLY IF RON LOSES BY JUST A FEW VOTES.
bryan saxton,
I've never used the term "moral relavence".
But if I were to use it, I would spell it "moral relevance".
Why do you ask?
MARY IS A SELFISH SPOILER WHO WILL HAVE MANY ENEMIES AFTER THIS...
If this is the "conservative" way of threatening candidates, no wonder countries around the world are rejecting American Democracy. And, if it is spoiler you are worried about, coward annon 8:45, then Ron "liberal" Saxton, pedophile enabler, spoiler of the Republican Party should step aside so this state has a chance to elect a real conservative.
Starrett has more guts, dignity, values and integrity than the phoney baby killing Ron Saxton could ever hope to have.
One more thing, those of you that continously threaten candidates (ie Mary Starrett) lives should get some balls and post your name. I have already seen one threatening comment from Lars Larson, whom was too much of a coward pussy to use his own name. Don't be too sure that if a candidate continues to get threats that the police won't come knocking at your door. Yes, Google's Blogger visitors, even annons, can have their IP's turned over to authorities for death threats.
Good post! And the silliest part about the death threats: I heard Hibbits saying that one of the 3rd party candidates even showed up in the data, that if they were statistically significant it was spead out over all the voters (eg, keating pulled from ted, starrett pulled from Saxton).
I think you guys just need to face the reality that Saxton just isn't a good enough candidate. It's not Starrett's fault that he did a poor job during all the debates and sounds like he has a mouth full of rocks.
Only thing people will remember is that Ron lost by 1,200 votes and Mary got 2,400 votes and otherwise, if she was not running, Ron would have gotten at least 2,000 of her votes and TED would be gone!
Ron pull out? $6 million dollars compared to Mary's few hundred on campaigning and he should pull out?
Even the American Family Association (Big anti-abortionists) didn't even aknowledge Mary exists, in their recommendation for Gov. of Oregon.
We remember that Ross Perot (who actually had $ to get his name out and many supporters) made us all stuck will Bill Clinton, the worst Pres. we have ever had. I made the mistake of voting on my principles for Ross, instead of reality. Never again.
Mary doesn't really care about Oregon, does she? proof is in the pudding.
We will all know soon enough.
anon 12:07 -
No, it makes you a cretin.
Starrett voters -
The mother ship is here, don't forget to pack your tinfoil hats!
Kulongoski was also dumb enough to appoint a judge who did not even meet the minimum qualification of residency..Youlee You. She got exposed and bounced off the ballot and now Leslie Roberts who filed against her and challenged her residency is being attacked with a write in campaign backed by Youlee You's supporters. I am delighted to vote for Roberts.
Also, I agree Mary Starrett is a wacko.Lets vote competence and law abiding...ok?
Vote for Saxton, the elitist Portland lawyer who's pro-choice and didn't even show up at an OFIR rally? A vote for Saxton is a vote for Ted. There's no difference.
At least Ted didn't house illegal immigrants.
Let me see...
Vote for Ron. Oh, wait he might have had some illegals on his property 10+ years ago, so that makes him a hypocrite (somehow), ergo - disqualifies him from any serious consideration.
Vote to re-elect Ted. No, wait...he wants to give illegal aliens a special drivers licence, and we cant have that! [cue accusations of bigotry w/ slack-jawed redneck stupid racist homophobic crowd noise]
Vote for Mary. Yes, she's pro- life, but she's also a 9/11 "truther" (It's a conspiracy, I tell ya'!), so that makes her value questionable.
Jeez, this business about being a democratic republic sure is a pain! What were the Founding Fathers [Fathers? Fathers?! Sexist! Sexist!] thinking? All this voting stuff is so... divisive!
Voting for Mary might take away votes from Ron, but thats ok because he...[fill in appropriate charge], and Mary is...[fill in appropriate accolades]. And the Snoregonian has Gov."Gonnagetcha" ahead by 7 or more points, so there's that to consider...
Ah, the hell with it! Vote for EVERYBODY!
Wait. Why bother voting at all? "They" are just going to steal the election, so what the hell, right?
Stay home. Watch "the view". Cheer for Rosie ("I never met a chocolate cake I didn't like") O'Donnels brave stand against the dreaded evil Christian fundementalist hoards ("...worse than Al Quida.") whos frightening agenda is to install a Theocracy and take over the world(!), as she defends your "Consitutional right" to sodomize your 'special friend'. Weep for Madonna.
Then again, what do I know about it? I'm just some stupid guy with a stupid nic. ("I invented the mullet"? I mean - come on!)
So, until Jesus Himself is on the ballot - I'll be voting the NBS Party* this year!**
*No Bulls__t Party
**or else I'll vote Republican
Post a Comment