Representative David Wu (D-OR) accused in “unwanted sexual encounter” scandal

Caption this tiger.

From The Oregonian:

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.

When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.

The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.

Wu claims the incident was consensual.

You may remember Rep. Wu from the 2010 election. His campaign staff apparently closed down his office and campaign just days ahead of the election due to his increasingly erratic behavior, including crazy e-mails he sent in which he pretended to be his daughter, and a picture of him dressed in furry attire as a tiger. They then confronted him over his mental health. Eventually, there was a mass exodus of staffers from his office.

Now comes this allegation, which is not the first time David Wu has been accused of this kind of behavior. During the 2004 election, The Oregonian reported (trigger warning: graphic details at this link) that a woman with whom Wu went to college alleged he had sexually assaulted her in 1976. The allegations were brought to light by Wu’s Republican opponent, but it was apparently common knowledge among Democratic insiders, according to the report.

This is different than your normal sex scandal involving politicians and consenting adult women because of the potentially criminal nature of the allegations. So I’m not going to comment on that aspect. What I will comment on is that this is yet another case that sends a warning about the nature of tribal allegiances in politics. Wu’s district encompasses Portland, a hotbed of progressive politics. The voters there voted him back into office in 2004 despite knowing about the previous allegation, presumably because they couldn’t stomach voting for the Republican. But what does that say about Portland’s voters, that a potential sexual aggressor was more acceptable to them than Goli Ameri, his female Republican opponent?

Do you think it might have something to do with that pesky problem with misogyny the left tends to have?

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in 2010 Elections, Politics, Sexism and Misogyny. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Representative David Wu (D-OR) accused in “unwanted sexual encounter” scandal

  1. votermom says:

    Great post, Lola!

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Thank you. I really couldn’t believe it when I got around to discovering than his opponent in 2004 was Goli Ameri. Her record is so much more impressive than Wu’s!

      • votermom says:

        Another GOP woman? The GOP really seem to be letting women take the lead. Kudos.

      • Dario says:

        Rep. William Jefferson was reelected after he was found to hide $90K from bribery in his freezer, and Republicans reelected Vitter districts also tend to reelect people like Vitter. It’s not uncommon for both, GOP and Democratic voters to reelect candidates with questionable characters because the voters are partisan in those districts. The “R” and “D” it’s all that counts.

      • angienc says:

        You are so right about Goli Ameri. I just wiki’d her & she is phenomenal. She would definitely get my vote if I ever have the opportunity. The Portland tribes ripped themselves off.

        And while Dario has a point about it happening with both Dems & Republicans, I still say that the PARTY leadership should step in with these morons & demand they not run for re-election. The district that re-elected Vitter, for example, would have probably re-elected ANY Republican.

  2. Lola-at-Large says:

    Yay! Thank you VoterMom!

  3. DeniseVB says:

    When I saw the first news breaking about this, they had him as a R-OR.

    I thought some overzealous young WTFer thought he had a Weiner payback and leaked it. Heh.

  4. Carolyn Kay says:

    >>a potential sexual aggressor was more acceptable to them than Goli Ameri, his female Republican opponent

    Also, why was he chosen by the Democratic establishment to be the Democratic candidate? Because, as we all know, you can’t win a Democratic candidacy unless the Democratic establishment backs you.

    Until we have primary reform and election reform, we ain’t got nothin’.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Good point, Carolyn. According to the 2004 article, Democratic insiders knew of the allegations in 1998, during his FIRST campaign. And they let him keep running…

      • 1539days says:

        One of the reasons Republicans lost so badly in 2006 was because they started trying to win more than trying to represent voters. The people who were elected in 1994 had reached the 12 year term limits they proposed and had no intention of going anywhere. That year, Lary Craig wanted to retire, but the GOP convinced him to run again because he was an incumbent and they needed the seats. Then the bathroom thing happened.

        It would be nice if the Tea Party has some principles but only time will tell.

        • Imo Craig was innocent. It was a police shakedown operation. They had some cop sitting on a toilet waiting to accuse travellers between planes who didn’t have time to fight it. A formula operation. “Pay us cash right now or else….”

  5. 1539days says:

    Welcome to the blog party.

    I guess it misses the point if I call him a typical Democrat pervert? 😛

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Well, yeah, ’cause there are plenty of Republican perverts, too. Mark Foley comes to mind… 😉

  6. yttik says:

    For a long time Dems have had this idea that if you work hard enough on social justice, you’re practically entitled to exploit women, in fact it’s fringe benefit. JFK right through to Bill Clinton were allowed to reap the harvest.

    Their hypocrisy really came to a crisis point during Hillary’s campaign. Suddenly we had a Dem woman that wanted to sit at the desk in the oval office, not hang out underneath it.

    Yeah, I’m bitter. I’m clinging to it, too.

    So anyway, this comment is not in praise of Republicans. They don’t win some sort of contest by default. It’s actually more of a warning to the Dem party. Quite a few women are no longer willing to overlook your bad behavior for the good of the party. We want a real seat at the table now.

    • 1539days says:

      The same thing might make Republican women running for office a little tougher than Democrats. Not only is there the misogyny from men, Democratic women are happy to dump on Republicans. Just look at Sarah Palin. Name another important Republican politician.

    • How would firing Hillary’s supporters Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner get Hillary a seat at the table?

      Alternative explanation: Because Bill and Weiner DID support women’s issues (among other things), the other side sent pantysniffers after them. Real opponents of women such as Gingrich and Guilliani get their worse deeds blinked at.

      it is men who DO support women’s issues, who get investigated by pantysniffers BEC

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        This is entirely different than the Weiner case, which involved consensual acts. The 19 year old girl here is saying that 56-year-old Wu perpetrated an “aggressive” and “unwanted sexual” encounter against her.

        • Mr. Mike says:

          Male rock stars exploit women too, we call those women groupies. Both JFK and Bill Clinton had the looks and the charisma so women were attracted to them. Their sin is they succumbed to the temptation.

          The accusation that Larry Craig was the victim of a police shakedown in laughable. Do you think he would be that principled that he would refuse to payoff the officers involved and be publicly humiliated? Do you think he didn’t have the political connections not to make those officers’ lives a living hell?

        • Mr. Mike says:

          Screwed up the nesting again, this is supposed to be a reply to yttik.

  7. Lola-at-Large says:

    FTR, folks, this post is not intended to suggest that Republicans are any better or less guilty. The point about tribalist politics is that this is the kind of mess you may find yourself in if you vote tribal, period. That means both sides. If people want real power and real representation, they better find a way to make both sides pay attention to their issues.

    Gay people did just that starting in the 1970s with Log Cabin Reps and have upped that ante significantly since Obama was elected. Look how it’s paying off for them. You have Republican leadership disagreeing with each other over whether or not gay marriage is appropriate when just 7 years ago they were basing their entire election strategy on opposition to gay marriage. That’s the possible payoff. Reform can’t happen in a tribalist vacuum.

    • Imo condemning ‘voting on the issues’ as ‘tribalism’ would be right up there with condemning Social Security as ‘entitlement’.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        I get where you are coming from, but I do think potentially criminal sexual behavior (including a history of it) trumps how he votes on issues. Are you seriously willing to vote for a guy who was accused of attempted rape and by his own admission was sanctioned for it in college (meaning he copped to it!) because he’s pro-choice? I’m sorry, but that’s not a length I’m willing to go to to get another vote on abortion. Or any other liberal issue, for that matter.

        • If someone is voting for the issues I care about, then I don’t care WHAT he’s accused of. If there’s a real criminal case against him, call the police and convict him in a real court. Otherwise let him keep up his real work.

          Any man who does vote for what I care about is going to get such accusations true or false. Pfui!

          There are thousands of real women out there being affected by real Congressional action. Equal pay, childcare benefits, health benefits…. Would you really have those important things lost for this sort of accusation (even if it WERE true?)

        • angienc says:

          If someone is voting for the issues I care about, then I don’t care WHAT he’s accused of.

          Yeah, because whats a little rape got to do with the issues you care about. {rolls eyes}

        • If he’s voting right on laws concerning rape, that’s more important than some accusation against him as an individual.

        • angienc says:

          If he’s voting right on laws concerning rape, that’s more important than some accusation against him as an individual.

          Jesus Fucking Christ, I hope to God you don’t actually believe that because you are so wrong that you can’t even see what’s right from where you are.

          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

        • I’m not saying he should be protected from criminal charges if there’s really a case. If and when he’s convicted, then Congressional rules will ban him.

          But imo no politician should be shouted out of office just for alleged personal misdeeds.

        • 1539days says:

          I guess the whole tribalism lecture didn’t take.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          That’s not actually what you said. What you said was that you didn’t care what he or anyone else did, as long as they voted your way, which is a lot like saying, “Who cares about the Jews as long he rebuilds Germany.”

          That said, no one is shouting him out of office yet. We here are just discussing this incident in light of his personal history, and in light of the fact that Democratic insiders seemed to be perfectly okay with his admissions about the earlier incident, which are not, in fact, speculation. And how tribal politics might be involved. I agree with Angie, 1539days, and Three Wickets in this conversation. You don’t. And you seem to have taken this post very personally. Why?

        • “I guess the whole tribalism lecture didn’t take.”

          Nor the lectures on ‘entitlements’ … or ‘racism.’

        • angienc says:

          @Lola — HONK!!!!!

  8. Oh good grief. Pick off the liberal Democrats one by one, with the same witchhunt charge. Guilty till proved innocent.

    Maybe the voters care more about the issues the person will be voting on.

  9. yttik says:

    Democrats wouldn’t have this problem if they’d just start electing women. I’ve never heard of a female politician emailing photos of her penis to constituents.

  10. Apr 24, 2008 – David Wu said Thursday he will cast his superdelegate vote for Barack
    politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/…/obama-picks-up-oregon-super…

    What, they’re going after Bots too? Maybe Wu got tired of koolaid?

  11. But what does that say about Portland’s voters, that a potential sexual aggressor was more acceptable to them than Goli Ameri, his female Republican opponent?

    Maybe they notice some pattern in how Republicans vote on laws.

    • 1539days says:

      The Ted Kennedy paradox.

    • angienc says:

      Bullshit. You are not going to tell me that THIS woman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Ameri — who is the current Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Diplomacy for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs; and is a former delegate to the United Nations would not have been an AWESOME US Rep. that the people of Portland would have been LUCKY to have represent them.

      • March 19, 2008 to January 20, 2009

        Served under Bush II.

        Not much of a recommendation.

        • angienc says:

          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
          WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

        • yttik says:

          She served under Bush which supposedly makes her questionable, however David Wu actually lived with Bill Frist, the cat killer.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Not to mention, that was 10 months. 10 MONTHS out of a lifelong career where she has impressive cred.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Also, her tenure with Bush came three years after this election, which kinda fucks up your entire argument here.

        • DandyTiger says:

          Served under Bush II.
          Not much of a recommendation.

          A perfect example of tribalism right there in a nutshell. Despite a stellar record, a reasonable moderate, she’s not liked because she has an R after her name. And the sex offender is liked better because he has a D after his name.

          I’m loving this post and the arguments. bl has some good points. So it’s a great argument. We can’t throw people out based on accusations, and even if they look questionable, that alone doesn’t make them worse than the opponent alone. There are some pretty nasty people out there that would be worse than almost anyone.

          But there are some moderate to even liberal people with R’s after their names. Think NE R’s. Think even Palin’s record as Governor (vs. obviously her far right noise lately). And there are some pretty far right people with D’s after their name (e.g. many southern and mid western D’s). So we have to look past party.

          Bottom line for me, there are two Republican parties. One that starts with R and one with D. So I ignore party. I look at candidates. I’m liberal so I’ll tend to like the ones with D’s more often than R’s, but it is certainly not always the case. There are a number of R’s I like quite a bit.

        • Karma says:

          I too understand and appreciate the argument about accusations are not facts but doesn’t that also apply to working in the Bush Admin? At that point it is just an accusation of wrong doing.

          A lot of people serving didn’t agree with the Bush Admin’s policies so writing them off without investigating their work and views seems be the same thing.

          For instance, we hear that Gen Powell fought back behind the scenes but then he lied his ass off at the UN to make the case for an unnecessary war. Gen Powell doesn’t get a pass in my book, but Goli might.

        • DandyTiger, on July 24, 2011 at 9:46 am

          Thanks, but I’m probably going to bail from this subthread, too flamey. Also almost everything I think of replying begins, “As I said above”.

          One point: G’s being chosen by Bush admin is a fact. She may be an unknown quantity but we know why he chooses people.

          Another: ‘Tribalism’ may be a good description of identity politics (Obama because he’s black, G because she’s a woman, Obama because of his cult mystique thing, etc). But a political party is not basically a ‘tribe.’ A tribe is something you’re born (or chanted) into, and it’s about heiridity (not about spelling obviously) and loyalty and emotion. A political party is adults who separately hold certain political goals CHOOSING to act together (temporarily) for those goals. To vote for the representative who votes for your goals — is NOT ‘tribalism’.

          I’m concerned about degredation of language. And the fact that no one sfaik has compared Wu’s voting record with G’s platform. As though the job of REPRESENTING the voters’ policy choices was irrelevant.

          (Plain competency is relevant too imo: I’ll vote for Palin again because she did a good job in Alaska. And for Ron Paul, because positions are mixed and some of his are good ones.)

        • Corrected says:

          I’m with on your side “bemused_leftist” … angienc, why should a Liberal District vote for a “Moderate Republican” over a Liberal Democrat??? … And enough already, there is nothing as a Moderate Republican in the House … none of the Repubs in the house stray from the herd … They all vote for the Party over their constituents …

      • votermom says:

        I have not heard of Goli Ameri before (or don’t remember if I have) but looking at that now and googling — that is a pretty darn impressive record.
        Also, this may be shallow, but I’m looking at her photos — she has a very sympatica face. Reminds me of a lot of my Persian friends who are very warm and have this kind of wonderful humorous way of dealing with life’s ridiculousness. She looks like someone who would be good to work for/with.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It was a good match up. Two immigrants who had made good, but Goli’s record was far more impressive than Wu’s. At that time, Goli did not even have ties to Bush (those came in 2008, with her 10-month tenure at State). And Wu hasn’t done much in his long tenure but screw things up for his fellow Oregonian house members and alienate Dem leadership every chance he gets. I can’t believe Dem leadership doesn’t even like him, but they keep supporting him. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/oregon_democrat_david_wu_and_h.html

          But basically, that race in particular should show Portland voters that they need to think more and trust their chosen party less, if they truly support women’s rights and progress that is.

    • Three Wickets says:

      More likely it says Portland voters are knee jerk lefties like Berkeley voters, Cambridge voters, Williamsburg voters. Koolaidsville for Obots who ultimately care more about identity politics than the issues, or else why would they keep supporting Obama the Republican.. I also think that sexism and sexist behavior in general have kicked up in our political culture since Obamania, and creeps like this Wu guy think they can get away with more. Hope he steps down. Thought he was in some kind of rehab anyway.

      • Corrected says:

        Portland Voters are “knee jerk lefties” and are proud of it …. They vote based on Issues .. that’s why they would never vote for a Republican over a Democrat & it has nothing to do with identity politics ….

  12. Mr. Mike says:

    The tribalism goes both ways because here in PA many vote for the party that is bringing about the demise of the middle class because not allowing gays to marry is more important to them. Consider that they chose an inexperienced conservative pundit over Representative Joe Sestak USN Retired. Similar to the Portlanders choosing Wu over Goli Ameri.

    Like many of the West Coast cities, Portland has a sizable Asian community, what will happen to any support he has there?

    • yttik says:

      It does work both ways! David Wu and Bill Frist were room mates. Apparently Wu was out raping women while Frist was kidnapping cats and conducting experiments on them.

      A few years later people are like, “I don’t care if Frist tortured cats, at least he’s not a Dem!” And the other side is, “I don’t care if Wu is forcing himself on women, at least he’s not a Republican!”. So how does all this tribalism benefit the people doing the voting? It doesn’t, we just wind up with these leaders that appear to have come from the Addams family.

      Needless to say I’m not impressed with a rapist preaching to me about women’s rights anymore than I am with a cat killer preaching to me about the sanctity of life.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Honk and a half, yttik!

        I too have found out more about Wu since I wrote this. Did you know that (quite a while) after the first attempted rape the women has tried to rape ended up dating Warren Buffet’s son and the son cut out an article about rape from a magazine and put it on Wu’s windshield. And the Dem leadership chose him over a more qualified female to begin with? And that Portland voters have consistently voted for him over Republican females? (he’s run against three I think)

        Yeah, the left is totally the party of and for women. NOT!

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          the woman HE tried to rape…sheesh

        • Corrected says:

          The left is first and foremost about supporting Liberal Causes. Since when is voting for Republican women a support for Liberalism. Sorry, but I would rather have Wu who has supported Liberal Causes over a Republican Women who has not.

          Portland Voters vote based on Issues not Identity Politics (Race, Gender, Party etc) as you seem to want them to.

          Voting for a man over a woman … no matter if the man shares your values is branded as “Sexism” in your eyes.

          You seem to be a person who’ll support any woman no matter where they stand on the issues.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Wow, you really don’t know me, do you? You’re goddamned right I’ll vote for any woman anytime, any party. Just put her on the ballot and she’s got my vote. I dare ya.

          Census, not consensus is what matters right now, and it will be the only thing that matters until some semblance of parity is met. We’re not even asking for half. 30% is a good start. The world will be better off when women have their share the power (and property for that matter). It is the fastest way to achieve liberal goals.

        • ” I would rather have Wu who has supported Liberal Causes over a Republican Women who has not.”

          HOnk. If by any chance the Republican Woman (whom Bush thought safe to appoint later) supported some Liberal causes, no one has said so. Her Wikipedia page gives no indication of it. It says she got the GOP nomination by good fund-raising, ran a dirty campaign (pushing the ‘college rape’ story) — and lost heavily. Apparently she had some prestigious executive posts, but nothing connected with US legislative experience. (Reminds me of Caroline Kennedy.)

          It’s voting by identity/gender that should be called ‘tribalism’, imo.

        • From AMeri’s Wikipedia page footnotes:

          FEC Fundraising Rankings for 2004 Congressional Challengers, slightly out-of-date, as it lists Ameri as #2, FEC filings from the campaign show almost $2.2 million raised overall, making her #1.

    • angienc says:

      Joe Sestak of the “no abortions covered under Obamacare” amendment and of the scandal about being bribed to drop out of the race against Specter by the WH? I don’t care who the peeps in PA put in instead of him, he deserved to lose. That’s what it takes sometimes — get the guy who isn’t listening to you OUT at any cost & 4 years later run someone who *is* actually GOOD.

  13. DeniseVB says:

    A little o/t….Huffington Post takes on Michele Bachmann’s FALSE EYELASHES ? What a bunch of “mean girls” over there.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/michele-bachmann-eyelashes_n_906670.html

    I think I remember why I stopped reading HuffPo.

    • catarina says:

      are they f*cking serious?
      what about Michelle Obama’s false eyelashes?
      she looks like a tranny for cripes sake.
      oh, the hypocrisy.

  14. foxyladi14 says:

    Great post, Lola!
    and we do the government we vote for 🙂

  15. Karma says:

    The southern California incident occurred a little over three weeks after the election.

    Here is a man who suffered no real consequences for his crimes. And then goes and celebrates forcibly on a friend’s/campaign supporter’s daughter.

    Frankly, i don’t know how the voters don’t feel a bit of responsibility for that. He probably wouldn’t be there three weeks later if he didn’t win the election.

    Not to say he wouldn’t try it on someone else or even the same young lady….but obviously there is a thread of connection from elected office and the need for funds. The voters embrace of that creep brought him to her house.

    Thanks for post Lola! Disturbing on a lot of levels. And somehow I doubt Goli Ameri has a chance to win, even now.

    • Karma says:

      That is….if she runs again…..

    • votermom says:

      Here is a man who suffered no real consequences for his crimes. And then goes and celebrates forcibly on a friend’s/campaign supporter’s daughter.

      It just occurred to me that this is a lot like DSK. He was linked to funds misuse in the French govt, got away with it, then later on in his career attempted to force himself on a supporter’s daughter.

Comments are closed.