The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has rightfully condemned "emerging attempts to shift responsibility for the Foley scandal by blaming gay Republican congressional staffers for supposedly covering up prior reports of predatory behavior by former Rep. Mark Foley." A release from the group further states:
Discussions of a supposed network of closeted gay Republicans working on Capitol Hill have swept the blogs and been raised on MSNBC and CBS. There are allegations, for example, that gay former Foley aide Kirk Fordham, the recently resigned chief of staff for Tom Reynolds (R-NY), worked to play down complaints about Foley's behavior. Fordham has said that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene. ...
The parallels to McCarthyism are chilling. Here it is gays, not communists, "operating at the highest levels of government." ...
While many Democrats may be taking real pleasure in watching the GOP twist and turn, it's long past time for them-and other leaders-to denounce these shameful, gay-baiting, responsibility-evading tactics.
I'd go much further: Both Democrats and social conservatives have quite openly been fanning the flames of homophobic panic in an attempt to secure political advantage.
More.
Gay Patriot cites a blog posting by David Corn, a columnist for The Nation, here, describing how some gay Democrats have been sending to social conservatives copies of "The List" of gay staffers working for Republicans on the Hill, in an effort to get them fired.
The WSJ's Daniel Henninger looks at the political/media circus, noting, "I have an idea: Let's fire the Members and replace them with the pages. We could do worse. We are."
National Journal calls the Foley scandal "A Calamity for Gay Republicans."
From the Drudge Report:
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
32 Comments for “The Witch Hunt on the Hill.”
posted by Jorge on
That’s probably the best rebuttal for my suspicion that there really is a corrupt culture of gay staffers in there. I wish I could agree with the NGLTF, but I don’t. I was not amused by the CBS report. Maybe it’s really not a gay thing but about differences that appear across sexual orientation, but I’ve seen several people here and elsewhere do almost exactly what NGLTF highlights as “allegations”: playing down the effects of Mark Foley’s behavior.
Yes, there is homophobia in the mix, and it should not be in there. People are being manipulative. There is also a very real group of people who would make excuses for or pooh-pooh Mark Foley’s behavior, and that is, in one Democrat advisor’s famous last words, fair game.
McCarthy ran around yelling fire all the time for his own gain, but there was smoke. Just as there is here. I wonder just what it means for Foley’s homosexuality and his strange interest in young congressional pages to be such an open secret in Congress. Either secrets were kept, or a lot of people were willfully blind.
Still, those are two separate issues for now. It is much too early to be concerned about who may have covered it up and why. We have to prove there was a coverup in the first place.
Finally, this is hardly the first time a network of closeted gay Republican (but not just them) staffers and congressmen has been suggested, either. It puts me to mind of when Rick Santorum’s staff member Robert Traynham was outed and this article–maybe it was from Time–about some individuals who practiced outing gay congresspeople and staffers. I know someone quoted brought something like that up. And even Barney Frank has suggested in an interview with PlanetOut.com that he does has his ears open into this network.
So what are we supposed to do when the facts are this bleak?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The whole kerfuffle around our supposedly sacred responsibility as out gay citizens to “defend” closeted Uncle Toms in positions of government power against crazy conservatives strikes me as hilarious.
Where were the closeted Uncle Toms when everyday gay families were under assault from the Republicans and Democrats the last 15 years?
Polishing their thirty pieces of silver, methinks.
posted by J.P. on
What Foley did was inappropriate, but not illegal (these were former pages above the age of consent). The media and GOP-haters and anti-gay rightwingers are all in league here, and all are making it sound like rape. There has been more condemnation of Foley’s horny emails than of the school shooters. Sorry, but you folks who think Foley needs to be crucified have no sense of proportion. Worse, you’re adding to the witch hunt — and believe me, you may be next.
posted by raj on
J.P. | October 6, 2006, 10:35am |
Sorry, but you folks who think Foley needs to be crucified have no sense of proportion.
Just to remind you, it was Foley himself who chose to resign. He didn’t have to. He could have run in his district–if he did, he might have won, and he might have lost. In the 1983 mini-scandals involving Republican Dan Crane (IL) and Democrat Gerry Studds (MA), both ran for re-election; Crane lost, but Studds won.
The issue isn’t Foley–that is what the Republican party hierarchy would like people to believe. The issue is the failure of the Republican party hierarchy to manage properly. Apparently some gay staffers “of a non-Republican bent” have compiled a list of gay Republican staffers and are sending the list out to a number of people, including to Religious Right organizations. David Corn suggests that they are trying to foment a “civil war” in the Republican party between the radical Religious Right and a more moderate wing of the party. BTW, there are three or four other posts downstream of the one that I linked to that are also relevant to the list.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’m curious to find out how many of the conservative gay folk defending Foley were outspoken critics of Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. I’m willing to bet quite a few were!
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
Before we say that he did was legal we must first; look at the age of consent, look at sexual harassment laws and look at the laws about what you can and can not send/talk about with a minor over the Internet.
posted by Randy R. on
What Democrats are fanning the flames of homophobia? Pelosi hasn’t said anything. If anything, the Dems have been pretty quiet about this. It’s the social and religious conservatives who have almost exclusively been fanning the flames.
After the dust settled in the pedolphilia case in the catholic church, it became clear that the real problem was the church bishops and hierarchy that ignored the problems and just reshuffled the offending priests around. The public rightly put the blame on the priests first, but mostly upon the bishops who knew about the behavior and did nothing. The church holds itself up as a moral institution, but its support cracked when people found out that maintaining power was more important than any morals.
The parallels are striking with the Foley case. So what did the catholic church do? They let the bishops off, they blamed ‘homosexuals in our midst’ for their problems, and they now have a policy that bans any gay person, or even questioning person, from being a priest.
My fear is that the Republicans, even more concerned about power than the church, will do the same thing. In the end, they will blame the ‘homosexuals’ for the whole thing, and vow that no gay person will ever serve in the GOP ever again, either as an elected official, or as a high level operative, like Ken Mehlman.
Any one else have a prediction?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Before we say that he did was legal we must first; look at the age of consent, look at sexual harassment laws and look at the laws about what you can and can not send/talk about with a minor over the Internet.”
Doesn’t it behoove those who claim what he did is illegal to check all that?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I know from first-hand experience that many gay GOP Hill staffers, far from “polishing their thirty pieces of silver,” as NL suggests, have been instrumental in keeping gay rights advocates apprised of developments on the Republican side of the aisle. This sort of thing is by its nature behind the scenes. Aside from that, people who do not know the staffers in question or what they have done should at least refrain from jumping to facile conclusions.
Speaking of gay Republicans, several (including Patrick Guerriero and Charles Francis) were present at noon today at the Library of Congress for a ceremony marking the donation of Frank Kameny’s papers to the Library’s Manuscript Division. Francis, along with author Dudley Clendinen and former congressman Michael Huffington, read from samples of the historic documents in the Kameny collection. A representative of the Smithsonian Institution accepted one of the picket signs from the first gay protest at the White House from 1965; twelve of those signs will enter the collections of the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History. Frank, who has had all these materials in his attic for decades, was present and spoke, as did a representative from the Manuscript Division. It was a proud and happy moment.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
many gay GOP Hill staffers, far from “polishing their thirty pieces of silver,” as NL suggests, have been instrumental in keeping gay rights advocates apprised of developments on the Republican side of the aisle
Ahhh, the old “insider knowledge” fallacy.
Firstly, note that my comments weren’t about “GOP gay staffers,” but “closeted uncle Toms.”
Second of all, all the examples of people you’ve named — Guarriero and Frances — are out.
Not exactly closeted, are they?
What I don’t understand is the continued implicit assertion that we should much care about the political fate of closeted gay conservatives (or liberals). Someone who subsumes his own identity and targets his fellow gays for personal power for himself doesn’t inspire concern when he finally dies a political death by his own sword.
My fear is that the Republicans, even more concerned about power than the church, will do the same thing. In the end, they will blame the ‘homosexuals’ for the whole thing, and vow that no gay person will ever serve in the GOP ever again, either as an elected official, or as a high level operative, like Ken Mehlman.
Like that’s such a huge loss.
Why do gay people feel a need to serve in a party which doesn’t want them, doesn’t like them, and doesn’t accept them — which uses gays as scapegoats at every election cycle?
posted by Marc on
Northeast, I agree with you. While I can certainly understand how gays (or anyone) can believe in conservative principles, the Repubs aren’t really practicing the ideals of conservatism anymore. I also still cannot understand why any self-respecting gay would be part of a party that has done little to nothing to show its inclusion of gays. Saying you like the party but not the people running it simply doesn’t wash, since the party is the people running it.
And even if some gay staffers hid info, the higher ups knew about this problem at least three years ago. They ignored it solely for political reasons, and that is why this case is some damaging to them. But it isn’t just the hiding, but the hypocricy that comes when your party claims to have “God and country and morals” on its side.
posted by Michael Safdiah on
Talk about gays at the top echelon, does anyone remember J Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn? What I’m sayin’ is this ain’t new, bud.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, do you honest to God think I am retarded? Where did I say that Guerriero and Francis were closeted? Since I could not possibly have intended any such thing, maybe it should have occurred to you that such a reading of my posting must be a misreading. But instead of picking up the clues that I was moving on to another subject, you once again stoop to yet more cheap point scoring.
Getting back to the Hill staffers, my reference to insider knowledge was direct reportage of something I personally know. If you think we would be better off in the long run purging these people anyway, that’s a separate point. But as I say, you might at least have the decency to pause to learn something about these people and what they have done instead of simply making facile assumptions. A lot of gay Republicans lately have been deeply discouraged about what is happening to their party. The reason they are discouraged is because they embrace many perfectly respectable and decent conservative values that liberal Democrats do not, and they have not been inclined to be single-issue voters. We need more civility in American politics, not less; and I don’t think it’s helpful, in responding to a President who virtually calls Democrats who disagree with him traitors, to make similar charges about Republicans (in this case gay Republicans). I am not a Republican, and I am not a conservative. But I know and respect many who are. My last column ended with the phrase, “Vote Democratic,” but looking past the next election, there are many issues to be sorted out in this country, and many points of view I want to hear from – not, for example, just the current Democratic leaders in Congress. I am hoping that the GOP loses a couple of election cycles badly enough that the reform-minded within that party can get some oxygen for their efforts; and I hope some of those people are gay. David Boaz of the Cato Institute points out that there is no well-organized party representing the libertarian views of vast numbers of Americans; I would welcome gay-inclusive organizing of that sort, even though libertarianism is not quite my cup of tea. This is not wishy-washiness, it is respect. I don’t feel a need for everyone to have the same perspective as I. Like it or not, we live in a diverse society. We need to learn better how to sort out our differences without constantly stooping to insults and scorn.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Since I could not possibly have intended any such thing, maybe it should have occurred to you that such a reading of my posting must be a misreading.
You were responding to my point about counting pieces of silver which referenced closeted Republicans on the Hill, and two seconds later launched into a discussion of Guerriero.
you might at least have the decency to pause to learn something about these people and what they have done instead of simply making facile assumptions
Why’s that?
I don’t really care either way. It’s their lives to live as they choose — that they choose to lie about their own sexual orientation is their choice, and they choose the risks and consequences which come with that. If they don’t like the risks, they shouldn’t engage in the activities.
A lot of gay Republicans lately have been deeply discouraged about what is happening to their party.
And they have that right. . . if I was one of them, I’d be a member of the depressed club myself. But I still don’t see why their depression over their big-government party going anti-gay should concern me, or why I should be concerned over their closetedness one way or the other.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute points out that there is no well-organized party representing the libertarian views of vast numbers of Americans
Yeah, Cato are busy bolstering the Republicans — a bit like an abused spouse, really.
Like it or not, we live in a diverse society. We need to learn better how to sort out our differences without constantly stooping to insults and scorn.
Actually, “we” don’t need to learn anything other than to focus on living our own lives and accepting the consequences of the life decisions which we make on a day to day basis. Most everyday Americans do this.
Republicrat political operators, however, don’t. They live secretive, deceptive lives in the political maelstrom of the inside-the-beltway world. When it’s convenient for their own political influence, ala Foley or Frank or whoeever, they’re not gay — and anyone who claims they are is “despicable.” They support anti-gay initiatives, etc.
Then, when they get caught in their obvious lie in an embarrassing fashion, we mere mortals must cease our observations about their hypocrisy because it’s “damaging to the dialogue.” We must submit to the insider perspective, become “understanding” of the struggles of the power-hungry, etc., etc., etc. Of course, they showed no such understanding to the average everyday gays and lesbians who suffered predation in order for these politicos to gain all the power, influence and wealth which comes with being part of the Washington power crowd.
I really couldn’t care less about their concerns or their complaints of incivility — it’s what they’ve sown over the years, coming back to bite them. Their claims of “quiet, secret behind-the-scenes opposition to anti-gay agendas” are laughable, and so are their claims of victimhood — given all the power they amassed for themselves through deception.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
they have not been inclined to be single-issue voters
This is also another load of simplistic nonsense.
There’s nothing “sophisticated” or “self-sacrificing” in choosing a closeted or uncle Tom role to gain political power and influence for oneself by supporting an anti-gay initiative. There are certain “single issues” for which no compromise is acceptable — including the basic rights of women, racial minorities, gays and lesbians, or indeed, the Constitutional rights of any group of Americans.
Again, you flatter yourself and the inside-the-Beltway perspective you represent by tossing out talking points like this while accusing those of us outside of your “secret contacts” of “not understanding reality.”
The reality is that no self-respecting gay man could, should or would support the anti-gay agenda for any reason. Claiming that one is “overlooking” such a basic issue and contributing his political capital and efforts to advance the Republican anti-gay agena due to “other principles” isn’t noble — it’s contemptible.
And it’s not “intolerant” or “ignoring diversity” or any other of the various Beltway cliches to say so. It’s common sense — something Foley, inside-the-Beltway politicos, and various other commentators could use a major dose of.
posted by dalea on
‘A lot of gay Republicans lately have been deeply discouraged about what is happening to their party.’
Lately? Like only in the last 30 years? What was their first clue? Sounds like we are talking about people who are either mentally deficient reality-wise or excessively prone to happy pills, a term that covers a great deal of territory.
It has been clear to many of us that the republicans are anti-gay in both theory and practice for quite some time. Those who ignore what is going on right in front of their eyes are truly beyond help. All the backroom manuevering and silent help probably amount to as much as that previously claimed by Dignity, the gay RC organization. Which is to say the whole effort is charitably described as a lie.
What seems to be missing here is a realization that the republican party has been taken over by the fundies. It is close to being wholely owned and operated by the religious right. There does not appear much chance of a moderate republican renaissance as the base would be a few republican organizations headquartered in large cities that usually vote democratic anyway. Which sort of group really can’t compete with the fundy machine headquartered in places where fundies actually win elections.
The battle was over a long time ago. The conservative gays lost. Maybe being open and out over the last 30 years might have changed things. But it is too late now.
Back to the drawing board guys.
posted by Randy on
Rick: I would welcome gay-inclusive organizing of that sort, even though libertarianism is not quite my cup of tea.
It’s not my cup of tea, either, but then I prefer high-grown oolong.
I’m not surprised to see gay republicans disappointed in their party. But now is the time for them to step and make their voice be heard loud and clear within the party. It’s very important for them to say to the Repub leadership, that the GOP has many gay operatives, and without them, the party wouldn’t be able to function.
There is a crisis right now within the GOP, and with every crisis, there is opportunity. There is a small window, and they must sieze it before the strong anti-gay wing of the party siezes it and used it to demonize gays forever within the party. And you know they will try.
posted by Steve Burton on
“…the republican party has been taken over by the fundies. It is close to being wholely owned and operated by the religious right…”
How odd. I would have thought that the main accomplishments (such as they are) of the present administration have been the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, The Medicaid drug benefit, “No Child Left Behind,” various tax cuts…no doubt I’m forgetting something – *not one of which has anything to do with the agenda of the Christian right.*
That agenda is more concerned with various “pro-family” policies that have gone essentially nowhere. Which is why many “fundies” are just as disgusted with the party under Bush II as the average gay conservative.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah yes, Dalea; and let’s remember the examples of what gay Democrats obediently carrying out witch hunts against gay Republicans and handing over tens of millions of dollars to Democrats has gotten, both in terms of candidates and party leadership.
And do you know the reason you have that, Dalea?
It’s because Democrats figured out a long time ago that gays like yourself were primarily interested in bashing Republicans, religion, and everything else — and as long as those were supported, you didn’t care what happened in terms of gay rights.
In short, they know they can parade you “open and out” gays in front to get “diversity points” and gullible dollars — and then shove you back into the closet when it comes time to win over actual voters.
posted by Carl on
-The WSJ’s Daniel Henninger looks at the political/media circus, noting, “I have an idea: Let’s fire the Members and replace them with the pages. We could do worse. We are.”-
This article snidely uses the word “culture” in a way that suggests it’s a euphemism for “tolerant of gays”. He’s a big person at the editorial board, from what the link says. Does that mean he was one of the people who wrote that weird editorial comparing Mark Foley and the page controversy to gays who want to be Scoutmasters?
posted by raj on
From the post
Gay Patriot cites a report in The Nation, here, describing how some gay Democrats have been sending to social conservatives copies of “The List” of gay staffers working for Republicans on the Hill, in an effort to get them fired.
Sorry, Stevie, but the link was not to The Nation, it was to David Corn’s weblog, which appears to be unrelated to The Nation.
BTW, I won’t be shedding crocodile tears any time soon for gay congressional staffers who are outed for working for homophobic congressmen and senators who work to deny me equal rights and who wish to remain in the closet to protect their livelihood. Why should they be permitted to profit at my expense?
posted by J.P. on
Well, you can always count on “raj” for a nasty comment against Steve.
As others have already noted, the GOP in fact has not unleased an anti-gay agenda with the exception of tepic support for the marriage amendment. But with the gay Democrats backing a campaign to purge gay GOP staffers, I would not be surprised to see that change. Which, of course, will please the gay Democrats, since they’d rather have anti-gay Republicans to fundraise against then advance a gay agenda (which will take at least some bipartisan support).
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the GOP in fact has not unleased an anti-gay agenda with the exception of tepic support for the marriage amendment
Excuse me while I laugh until near-involuntary urination commences.
I mean, except for that whole Holocaust thing, the Nazis weren’t that anti-Jewish either!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The battle was over a long time ago. The conservative gays lost.
The conservative gays (and the liberal ones in the Democratic Party, for the most part) are closeted at work — or, if they’re out, they’re “good little homosexuals” who “don’t put their personal concerns in front of what’s good for the country” (i.e. they regularly cover for their parties’ anti-gay agendas with some pap about self-sacrifice while living a life where the outcomes of such anti-gay initiatives don’t touch them, due to the tremendous political and economic power their privileged positions in government afford them).
posted by Randy on
In today’s Sunday NY Times, the front page article intereviewed gay republican hill staffers. Some of them admitted that sometimes it’s difficult to be a gay repub, that they do it because they are conservative on taxes, spending, war, and so on, and because they want to be voice within the party to try to make them more accepting of gays.
I hope they succeed of course. But that paints an awefully different picture of the GOP than ND 30 would. And that’s form the insiders who *really* know.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh really, Randy? How so?
And your last condescending statement says it all:
I hope they succeed of course. But that paints an awefully different picture of the GOP than ND 30 would. And that’s form the insiders who *really* know.
Actually, you don’t hope they succeed. You want them to fail and you want them to be purged.
Why?
Because when gay Republicans succeed, it makes all the more obvious how stupid your wasting gay dollars and money on homophobes and bigots like Kerry, Clinton, and Dean was (and is).
For instance, thanks to Republicans, you can now will your partner your pension and retirement benefits without them immediately have to take a distribution from them (and thus a huge tax penalty); instead, they can do exactly as can a spouse and with the same tax protections.
By the way, Harry Reid and the Democrats opposed pension reform to allow that. But I can see why they would; they knew damn well that gays are so well-brainwashed that the Dems could tell them anything later and they’d believe it.
posted by raj on
Regarding Steve’s addition From the Drudge Report…
It would be a mistake to believe every rumor that Drudge posts on his web site. Via TPM Muckraker
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | October 9, 2006, 1:52am |
For instance, thanks to Republicans, you can now will your partner your pension and retirement benefits without them immediately have to take a distribution from them (and thus a huge tax penalty); instead, they can do exactly as can a spouse and with the same tax protections.
Citation?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Look it up yourself, Raj.
I learned a long time ago that giving you a citation was wasted energy, because even if you’re wrong, you’ll just whine and criticize the source.
Look it up and call us back with the answer. If anyone else wants it, they can email me.
posted by raj on
Ah, another citation-free comment from NDXXX.
posted by ETJB on
“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well,”
Sounds to me like more b.s. from the Republican Party spin machine.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, another citation-free comment from NDXXX.
Ah, another attempt by Raj to get out of a bad situation.
You see, Raj, I’m well aware of how you play this game; you claim someone else is lying, get proven wrong, and then try to criticize the source as a way out. By forcing you to reveal that my statement is correct, it effectively ties your hands.