« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Even Staff Says: Oregon’s David Wu is Bonkers

By: proudgop (Diary)  |  February 20th, 2011 at 12:13 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Very interesting article on the mental state of Oregon’s David Wu at the  Oregonian

Wu lost half a dozen of his staff after they resigned once he won re-election.  Wu sent female staffers emails from his teenage children, as well as a picture of himself dressed as a tiger. His staff considered checking him into a psychiatric ward on October 30th, less than a week before he won his seventh term.

If even your staff does not think you have the mental capacity to be serving then why in good conscious should he be allowed to swear on a bible to defend the Constitution of this country?


COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • hoosierteacher

    The man clearly has a medical problem, and needs treatment. Calling the guy “bonkers”, regardless of his party affiliation, doesn’t seem in good taste to me.

    The FoxNews site has a story up on this, relating to attmepts by his staff to get him into treatment. So far he has refused and several of his staff have decided to quit. That’s the gist of the story.

    Making light of someone’s illness is contempatible, and reflects badly on the site.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      This is a Member of Congress. This needs exposure.

      • hoosierteacher

        But if you have ever dealt with mental illness with a loved one, the term “bonkers” is pretty out there. Would you appreciate the use of the term if it were applied to a republican, or to a family member? I’ve worked in the mental health field (I was a therpaist before I switched to teaching). A lot of work has gone into erasing the stigma of mental illness to encourage people to get assistence with what is a medical problem and typicaly treatable.

        I don’t think it is being politicaly correct to avoid using terms like “bonkers” to describe people with a medical problem. Is Giffords “Bonkers” right now? I wouldn’t use that term, and (to our side’s credit) nobody is calling on her to step down even though she is clearly unable to carry out her constitutional duties. Clearly I feel more sympathy for Giffords, a crime victim who is fighting to get better. Congressman Wu is a victim of an illness (it would seem), but he isn’t making any attempt to get better. I’m all for giving him the heave ho too. But let’s leave the name calling out when we are talking about someone with an unfortunate medical illness.

        The issue IS news, and should be reported on. The guy should get help or step down. We agree on this 100%. But if Red State thinks it is appropriate to use “bonkers” to categorize a mental illness, then they’ve lost the moral high ground whenever they discuss the mental state of any person.

        The story is fine. The title is clearly offensive to anybody who has worked in the field, has a mentaly ill relative, or a anyone with a shred of decency.

  • hoosierteacher

    It is much longer, loses the “bonkers” term, and is much more damning about Wu. I’ve given my rec there and comented as well.

    • proudgop

      The issue here is where was the media? Wu had zero public appearances a week before an election? However, Oregon’s mail in ballots also showcase another reason why I am against them.

      The issue of why voters keep on electing this man also is a question. This is a man who was accused during his time in college of trying to force his then gf to have sex with him.