The Foley hysteria continues to be fanned by Democrats and the liberal national media at one end and social conservatives at the other. And, as with all politically generated hysteria, the consequences are not good.
Example: According to the Washington Blade, as of a few days ago: "Some Arizona gay rights advocates say the increased opposition among state residents to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, as reflected in recent polls, is attributable to Rep. Jim Kolbe (R), the state's retiring gay congressman, who is a vocal opponent of the amendment."
Now, of course, the unholy left/right alliance is fueling a rush of attack stories slandering Kolbe, based on politically motivated allegations by our old friends "unidentified sources." The likely result: to ensure passage of the Arizona amendment.
Gay Patriot has more.
Democrats are in a bit of a bind, praising the late Gerry Studds as the first out gay Congressman while downplaying the fact that, unlike Foley, he actually had sex with a page. Fortunately for them, outside of the obits the media is pretty much ignoring Studds' passing.
29 Comments for “Homophobia-Fueled Politics.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Comparing Kolbe to Foley is like comparing Belgian chocolate to Mississippi riverbank mud.
Kolbe is an out Republican who doesn’t hide from or run from his orientation — and he’s been so for fifteen years. I have respect for the man.
Foley is just a partisan hack who valued his own power over honesty about himself.
The other hilarious thing is watching the Republicrats and Demopublicans beat each other over the heads with their purses, trying to convince people that one or the other is homophobic.
Republicans complain that Democrats are homophobes even as they draw up “The List” of gay Republicans who they’re going to bounce out of Congressional aide roles, campaign on an anti-gay constitutional amendment, and take potshots at Nancy Pelosi as a “San Francisco Democrat” (i.e. she comes from where the faggots are!)
Democrats complain that Republicans are homophobes even as they all line up to support anti-gay laws like DOMA, send their party chairman to the 700 Club to explain the party’s undying opposition to gay marriage, and gay-bait in local elections all over the country. Heck, a search for “gay” on supposedly pro-gay pro-DOMA Hillary’s site returns not a single result.
Here’s the reality: both old parties are homophobic. And in all but a very few circumstances, neither party’s candidates have earned the votes of gay and lesbian Americans.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
PS — where’s the evidence that Democrats have anything to do with the attack on Kolbe? It could just as well be anti-gay Republicans (the same ones who heckled Kolbe during his presentation during the 2000 RNC).
It’s also a bit charming that GP and a blog he links to are both trying to tie the whole issue to the BSA’s anti-gay policy, as though it somehow “validates” their bizarre suppositions about the motives of people they don’t like.
posted by Antaeus on
Has anyone read the sick shit on so-called GayPatriot’s blog? He has regulars like “Peter Hughes”, “Calarato” and “V the K” who spew the most homophobic shibboleths at “DemocRATs” and show no evidence of caring about gay well-being, let alone being gay. Bruce leaves these comments up unscrubbed and unremarked on. WEIRD.
posted by Antaeus on
Pardon me, I just found evidence that the provocateurs above are in fact gay. For all their contempt of pro-gay gays, they can’t help going in to heat over militarist porn.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The whole thing is bizarre. Republicans complaining of homophobia are a bit like members of the CCC complaining about racist attitudes, or members of Stormfront complaining about anti-Semitism.
It’s unfortunate that they’re suffering from such obvious conflicts in their personal lives, but can’t we living in the sane domain dismiss it as the strangeness it is — rather than try to make partisan hay out of it because it could potentially hurt the ‘Crats?
Honestly, it’s just sad.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
PS — where’s the evidence that Democrats have anything to do with the attack on Kolbe? It could just as well be anti-gay Republicans (the same ones who heckled Kolbe during his presentation during the 2000 RNC).
Um…..because paid Democratic operatives Mike Rogers and John Aravosis have been trying to dig up dirt on and fling mud at Kolbe for years?
It’s also a bit charming that GP and a blog he links to are both trying to tie the whole issue to the BSA’s anti-gay policy, as though it somehow “validates” their bizarre suppositions about the motives of people they don’t like.
The theory behind Democrats’ opposition to the ban on gay scoutmasters is that being gay is irrelevant to one’s being a pedophile and that gays should not automatically be suspected of raping children.
If you follow this story, you notice something peculiar; NBC first aired the story of the trip early last week, WITHOUT allegations. They basically stated, “Shouldn’t we be suspicious that a gay Congressman went on a camping trip with former pages?”
What I think is really funny, though, is that outing supporter NL has seemingly gotten upset over this. Anyone who knows anything about Mike Rogers and this whole outing morass should know that Rogers is a petty, vindictive person who completely and unscrupulously plays to the revenge and power fantasies of gays like NL. His outings have nothing to do with actual gay rights issues, but everything to do with a desire to be noticed and gain the validation of others. Gays like NL rationalize his actions using amusing and twisted moral relativism.
However, it’s even more entertaining when their, “well, it’s OK to out if….” turns around and bites them — as it has here.
posted by ETJB on
Most of the media is hardly ‘liberal’. The Republican Party is always going to have the sh__ hit the fan over public outings such as this. Especially in the straight media where people are actually shocked to find out that this Congressman is gay.
Remember their big platform in 2000 and 2004 was that if you voted Republican the gays would be kept in line, people would be allowed to read the Bible and all would be wholesume and Godly.
Also, Studds admitted what he did, did not try to blame it on booze, told people it was his private life and went on to let the voters judge him on election day. He was also a fairly liberal Democrat and not some Florida consevative Republican.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Anyone who knows anything about Mike Rogers and this whole outing morass should know that Rogers is a petty, vindictive person…”
I didn’t know Mike Rogers so I took a look at his blog. Here is an excerpt: “Congressmen, straight or gay, should not be off on camping trips with pages or recent former pages. I don’t care if they are 16 or 19 or 21. Period. Legal or illegal, I don’t care. Its’ immoral and it’s unethical. It’s wrong.”
No comment…
posted by raj on
From the post:
Democrats are in a bit of a bind, praising the late Gerry Studds as the first out gay Congressman while downplaying the fact that, unlike Foley, he actually had sex with a page
Aside from the fact that Stevie doesn’t really know whether or not Foley actually had sex with a page, Studds was man enough to stand for re-election at the next election (1984) after the 1983 censure, and he won in a relatively conservative Democratic district. Foley didn’t stand for re-election.
Apparently, Stevie also wishes to ignore Republican transgressions in the early 1980s. Perhaps he would like to remember Robert Bauman and Dan Crane, both of whom lost their re-election bids.
From Northeast Libertarian | October 15, 2006, 10:17am |
Kolbe is an out Republican who doesn’t hide from or run from his orientation — and he’s been so for fifteen years. I have respect for the man.
Have respect for him if you wish, but the fact is that he outed himself only because a gay publication (the Advocate, I believe) was in the process of outing him because of his vote in favor of DOMA. Kolbe obviously decided that outing himself in his own manner was better (for him) than allowing someone else to out him. I don’t particularly respect him for doing that, but I don’t disrespect him, either.
Antaeus | October 15, 2006, 5:31pm |
Has anyone read the sick shit on so-called GayPatriot’s blog?
Yes, Bruce (Gay”Patriot”), Dan (Gay”Patriot”West) and their sycophants are Republican apparatchicks. They’re living in la-la-land, and most of them are Yellow Elephants. Quite frankly, the most disgusting thing that I read there was a few months ago, when Bruce (Gay”Patriot”) basically wrote that the US should continue the war in Iraq because “Americans don’t like to lose.” I commented in response that that post was disgusting, because it made war out to be like a football game. Bruce is an idiot, and Dan isn’t far behind.
posted by Paul Holzapfel on
Stephen, Quit being such a victim. I have listened to the Homophobe Republicans spew their vile for years. I do not rejoice in the severe ridicule that Republicans are recieving due to their own hypocrisy, but it is long overdue to be sure.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
paid Democratic operatives Mike Rogers and John Aravosis have been trying to dig up dirt on and fling mud at Kolbe for years?
Making claims is not providing proof. Until you provide proof, the claims are spurious — especially when one considers the extreme anti-gay animus in your own party.
And yes, I concur that Rogers and Aravosis are embarrassing — the latter’s willingness to dismiss the reports of anti-gay persecution in Iran because they were politically inconvenient for his left-wing friends was particularly galling. But just because they suck doesn’t mean they’re behind all your party’s troubles.
revenge and power fantasies
It’s rather funny — you’re living your own ones out right now.
As I stated before in the last e-mail where I thoroughly dessicated your weak arguments, I have no desire for power other than power over my own life, and no need for “revenge.”
Revenge is a Republicrat trait (“we’ll hit them twice as hard” — Karl Rove), and desire for power? Well, your party has ruled that the president should be able to imprison anyone he wants, without charges, indefinitely. Your party has grown federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people and swollen discretionary spending by an average of 8% every year. Your party has passed laws which allow secret wiretaps of all citizens without a court order, which allows citizens to be detained indefinitely without any charges or trial, and has tried to rule the Geneva Conventions “irrelevant.”
You’ve got a lot of nerve (and not many brain cells) to try and accuse anyone else of being power-hungry, bubba.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Making claims is not providing proof. Until you provide proof, the claims are spurious — especially when one considers the extreme anti-gay animus in your own party.
And thus the goalposts move, NL.
You asked for evidence that Democrats were involved; I pointed to the clear and obvious fact that Aravosis and Rogers have been smearing and trying to dig up dirt on Kolbe for years. Furthermore, if you’d actually read either of their blogs for the past couple of weeks, you’d know that they’ve been bragging about the “information” they’ve been passing on to the media and to the Democratic Central Campaign Committee.
And now to your diatribe. You know, there’s an interesting statistic you cited in there.
Your party has grown federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people and swollen discretionary spending by an average of 8% every year.
Really? That’s interesting, considering this statement (under “Executive Summary”).
In FY 2005, there were 2.6 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
How exactly do you “grow(n) federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people” — and get 2.6 million?
Given your accuracy in that statement, I think it fair to assume that your assessment of “facts” is at best questionable.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
thus the goalposts move, NL
Sorry, ND30, I’m the sort who thinks that if you make an accusation, you have to have a basis for the accusation beyond paranoid suspicions. Sorry to be so “unreasonable.”
How exactly do you “grow(n) federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people” — and get 2.6 million?
That’s obviously an incorrect number. Last time I checked, the Army alone employs almost 2 million people.
I’m sure you can cherry-pick your numbers, just like you cherry-pick your suppositions about who is “victimizing” you and your candidates, to support your “I’m so oppressed” worldview. Unfortunately for you, it’s not very compelling.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
if you’d actually read either of their blogs for the past couple of weeks, you’d know that they’ve been bragging about the “information” they’ve been passing on to the media and to the Democratic Central Campaign Committee
I’m still waiting for substantive proof that it was either Rogers or Aravosis who commented on Kolbe and made the accusations in question.
I normally have respect for my ideological opponents, ND30, but you’re being particularly dimwitted this time. Are we supposed to *seriously* believe that a couple of over-the-top liberal bloggers are able to get George W. Bush’s FBI to investigate a Congressman over alleged “improper behavior” when they don’t actually know the Congressman in question?
Or even members of the DCCC, for that matter?
Do you *really* think people are that gullible?
Whoever has made the allegation has to have been close enough to the situation to have some credibility — in other words, someone who was actually on the camping trip in question, or who is close to the situation. In other words, all the actual rational consideration suggests that it’s at least as likely to be one of those anti-gay sorts your party is full of. It’s got almost zero chance of being either Rogers or Aravosis, since neither are capable of the sort of access and involvement in the specifics which would be required to initiate an investigation by law enforcement.
I know that you and your party have tried to shred our Constitution and rule it null and void, but just because you have contempt for the rule of law doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still exist — including in this situation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
More on Kolbe. Apparently, we are to believe that John Aravosis and Mike Rogers now control the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department:
Overseers of the House of Representatives’ program for teenage assistants this week discussed a camping trip that Republican congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona took with two former interns and others in 1996?an outing now under review by the Justice Department, a congressional source said Tuesday.
So the Aravosis and Rogers gadflies are able to initiate a witchhunt in a Republican-controlled Congressional committee and initiate an investigation in a Republican-controlled Justice Department through their blogs? They’re pretty powerful Democrats, if that’s the case. Perhaps we can put their amazing powers to use on world hunger next. . .
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All one needs to involve the US District Attorney (and thus the FBI) in a situation is an accusation. Really, that’s what an investigation is — looking for facts and confirmation of specifics that corroborate and relate to an accusation and determining whether legal action is necessary.
In short, there’s nothing magical about it. You could trigger an FBI investigation of anyone if you went to the FBI with information, even if you weren’t directly involved in the situation and were just acting on behalf of someone else or on the basis of something you overheard or found in your own research. Banks and financial institutions do it all the time when they notice out-of-the-ordinary transactions.
It’s not a question of the FBI or the US Attorney being “gullible”, NL; it’s merely the fact that, as a law enforcement agency, they are duty-bound to investigate ANY accusation that is made. They don’t have the right to pick and choose which ones they think sound better. People like Aravosis and Rogers exploit that fact; they make anonymous accusations, then point to the fact that an investigation has been opened as some sort of proof of guilt.
But really, I understand why you’re spinning so desperately; you’re upset about this.
That’s obviously an incorrect number.
Nope. It is obviously a correct, easily-referenced, pertinent statistic that refers EXACTLY to the number of people employed by the Federal government.
The reason you think it’s “incorrect” is that it makes complete and utter hash of your “four MILLION” statement, especially in the complete absence of any referenceable material that would demonstrate your claim.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | October 18, 2006, 1:55am |
Nope. It is obviously a correct, easily-referenced, pertinent statistic that refers EXACTLY to the number of people employed by the Federal government.
Those of us who aren’t terminally stupid know that it is not. Indeed, the number of people in the US military alone exceeds 2.6 million. It is unclear what the EEOC figures really measure–and those figures appear to differ from the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics–but it is clear that the total number of federal employees exceeds 2.6 million by a wide margin.
What is at least as instructive is to compare the trend of federal government employment–as measured by the EEOC–from 1992 (the last year of Bush 1’s malAdministration) through 2005. In 1992, federal government employment was 2.75 million. The number decreased each year during the Clinton administration to 2.45 million. Since then, the number has obviously increased to 2.6 million, according to your figure.
By the way, your contention that
All one needs to involve the US District Attorney (and thus the FBI) in a situation is an accusation.
is idiotic in the extreme. The Center for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) faxed copies of the Foley-page emails that they had received to the FBI on July 11, the day that they received them. The FBI did not start up an investigation until after ABC news made the emails public on September 30. I know that you and your buddies at Gay”Patriot” like to dissemble, but this is thoroughly preposterous.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My, NL, your dissembling and spin has gotten even more entertaining.
May I remind you of what your original statement was?
Your party has grown federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people and swollen discretionary spending by an average of 8% every year.
Now, even if one uses the US military’s maximum number of 2.6 million itself, active AND reserve, that plus 2.6 million in the Federal workforce adds up to 5.2 million.
The number that you cite from the last year of the Clinton administration is 2.42 million.
5.2 million minus 2.44 million represents only 2.76 million people, not “4 MILLION” — and that 2.44 million does NOT include the armed forces, active and reserve, in 2000.
If we compare that 2.44 million figure to the 2.6 million one I cited, it becomes obvious that the Federal workforce has only grown by 0.16 million, or 160,000 individuals. Furthermore, when one considers the added functions (and employees) that the Federal government has had to take on since 9/11, such as federalizing all airport screeners, security, and checking systems, that comes into perspective quite quickly.
For your next attempt to dissemble:
is idiotic in the extreme. The Center for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) faxed copies of the Foley-page emails that they had received to the FBI on July 11, the day that they received them.
And the FBI looked at them, and pointed out that the emails did not constitute a crime or evidence of a crime; plus, since CREW redacted the names of the individuals involved, what exactly were they to investigate?
What’s funny is that even CREW admits the following in their wild spinning attempt to defend their actions:
According to several government officials, the FBI sent the emails to three squads: a public corruptions squad, a criminal squad and a cyber-squad. After reviewing the matter, the FBI determined that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to suggest any criminal activity and did not move forward with an investigation.
Also, I would point out your statement from above, NL, trying to defend why paid Democratic operatives like Rogers and Aravosis with a history of smear campaigns against Kolbe could not possibly be involved:
Whoever has made the allegation has to have been close enough to the situation to have some credibility — in other words, someone who was actually on the camping trip in question, or who is close to the situation.
Thus, by your own logic, since you claim that CREW was not involved in the situation, was not close to the situation, and was just notifying the FBI of information they received, that shouldn’t have warranted an FBI investigation.
You have a choice: either admit that Rogers and Aravosis, by passing along information they gathered, could have triggered an FBI investigation — or that CREW is wrong to criticize the FBI, since their information was, according to you, not sufficient to trigger an investigation.
Again, the FBI DID do as they should and take a look at the emails; the simple fact of the matter is that the emails did not constitute any sort of a crime. The instant messages likely did, but the FBI didn’t have those, and it had no real means of getting them, since it didn’t know they existed in the first place and to whom they had been sent.
This sort review of information sent to them by Aravosis and Rogers is likely what the FBI and US Attorney are doing relative to Kolbe as well.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The number that you cite from the last year of the Clinton administration is 2.42 million.
5.2 million minus 2.44 million represents only 2.76 million people, not “4 MILLION” — and that 2.44 million does NOT include the armed forces, active and reserve, in 2000.
You’re also excluding part-time employees.
But I know you’re going to run, screaming, from your party’s record — it’s not a surprise.
trying to defend why paid Democratic operatives like Rogers and Aravosis with a history of smear campaigns against Kolbe could not possibly be involved
As someone who still believes in due process, despite your party’s efforts to eliminate it, I simply believe that you need to present some evidence for your point of view.
So far, you haven’t.
admit that Rogers and Aravosis, by passing along information they gathered, could have triggered an FBI investigation
How do two liberal bloggers, neither of whom know Kolbe or had any involvement with him, get a Republican Justice Department to trigger an investigation right before an election?
Please, answer the question.
After all, Paula Jones wasn’t too successful at triggering an FBI investigation, and she was making personal claims about Clinton — not “passing on” allegations.
The facts are simple — the FBI doesn’t initiate investigations unless there’s some potential validity to the story. Partisan bloggers cannot trigger investigations — only individuals who are relatively familiar with the situation can do so, and only then if they’re credible.
You yourself admit that Aravosis and Rogers aren’t credible.
So again, where’s this magical power they have to command the FBI to launch an investigation coming from?
Answers, please.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
And before I forget, ND30, are you denying that there’s a strong effort by the right wing of your own party to purge it of gay people?
And who are you, anyway?
posted by ETJB on
This reminds me of the old saying that, in politics, the cover-up is often what really gets you into trouble.
The Congressional GOP cover-up really hurts their crediblity with socially conservative and moderate voters.
If they [GOP leadership] had handled the Congressman differently then they damage may not be so bad.
I would be suprised if Foley does any or much jail/prison time. His political career is over, but then again it was pretty much dying when he bailed out of the Senate race.
posted by raj on
From WaPo Big Government Gets Bigger: Study Counts More Employees, Cites Increase in Contractors:
More at link.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
That number also doesn’t include part-time employees, migration of TSA employees to federal employment, etc.
I don’t have the citation in front of me, but for ND30 to argue that the GOP hasn’t swelled both government spending and the ranks of federal employment is laughable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It should be obvious to anyone that Raj and NL are beyond desperate when it comes to trying to justify their own ludicrous assertions.
Let’s remember that NL started with this statement:
Your party has grown federal employment by over FOUR MILLION people and swollen discretionary spending by an average of 8% every year.
I demonstrated that this statistic was an impossibility given the number of people who work for the Federal government, even if one included the US military.
Then, in a desperate attempt to justify his and NL’s idiotic statements, dissembler Raj tries to claim that anyone who receives a Federal contract or grant from the Federal government counts as an employee of the Federal government — of course ignoring that this is, at best, a mathematical estimate and not an accurate portrayal of employees, as the article makes clear:
Light acknowledges that his numbers of contractors and grantee employees are estimates from federal procurement and grant data, and are harder to nail down than the number of civil servants. But the trend is clear, he said.
Which leads to this spin by NL:
I don’t have the citation in front of me, but for ND30 to argue that the GOP hasn’t swelled both government spending and the ranks of federal employment is laughable.
Actually, what’s “laughable” is the fact that you and your fellow dissembler Raj can’t produce data that backs up your claims of “four MILLION”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The facts are simple — the FBI doesn’t initiate investigations unless there’s some potential validity to the story. Partisan bloggers cannot trigger investigations — only individuals who are relatively familiar with the situation can do so, and only then if they’re credible.
I repeat myself from above, NL:
Thus, by your own logic, since you claim that CREW was not involved in the situation, was not close to the situation, and was just notifying the FBI of information they received, that shouldn’t have warranted an FBI investigation.
Again, NL, you have a choice: you can either claim that the FBI should have launched an in-depth investigation based solely on the CREW information, which neatly disembowels your “Aravosis and Rogers couldn’t do anything” theory, or you can admit that the FBI should not have investigated the Foley emails for the same reason — CREW wasn’t a party to the complaints and, as a known partisan organization, had no credibility.
The simple fact of the matter is that the FBI takes any accusation it receives seriously; it reviewed the Foley material extensively and determined that it didn’t constitute evidence of wrongdoing. Just as I am sure they are doing with the Kolbe situation, and I fully expect that they won’t find anything untoward there, either.
That’s their job.
Meanwhile, why are you so desperate to cover up and spin away evidence of Rogers’s and Aravosis’s involvement in this? You have yet to produce any evidence of your claim that this is the work of alleged right-wing gay haters, while I have produced several examples of Rogers’s and Aravosis’s animosity towards Kolbe and their avowed desire to see him hurt and slandered.
Answers, please.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you can either claim that the FBI should have launched an in-depth investigation based solely on the CREW information, which neatly disembowels your “Aravosis and Rogers couldn’t do anything” theory
Are you claiming now that Aravosis and Rogers work for CREW?
Gosh, you like conspiracy theories, don’t you?
Whoever you are. . .
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
why are you so desperate to cover up and spin away evidence of Rogers’s and Aravosis’s involvement in this
You haven’t produced any evidence to cover up or spin away, other than an undocumented claim that they’re suggesting they’re responsible. Which is, as I’ve indicated, unlikely for a number of reasons.
But whatever, I know the liberal bogeymen under the bed are coming to get you, ad nauseum.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, NL, your spin and dishonesty in attempts to cover yourself up are breathtaking.
CREW was not a party to the Foley situation, nor was it involved in-depth.
You claim that Aravosis and Rogers could not have started an FBI investigation because they were not a party to the Kolbe situation, nor were they involved in-depth.
However, you claim that the FBI should have launched a full-bore investigation based on CREW forwarding them the Foley emails.
Again, your choice; either you retract your statement about the FBI not reacting enough to the CREW emails, or you admit that Rogers and Aravosis could have triggered an FBI investigation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
your spin and dishonesty in attempts to cover yourself up are breathtaking
Actually, I’ve published my name and contact information here.
You haven’t.
Who’s spinning and covering up, here?
you claim that the FBI should have launched a full-bore investigation based on CREW forwarding them the Foley emailss
Where did I make this claim?
Could you address the actual questions I’ve asked and the actual points I’ve made, rather than making ones up out of thin air?
retract your statement about the FBI not reacting enough to the CREW emails
Retract statements I haven’t made?
It doesn’t work that way. Either provide some substantive evidence of your accusations against Aravosis/Rogers, or apologize to them.
Just because they’re dicks doesn’t mean that you have a “right” to just make shit up about them. I know Republicans are divorced from the truth on most issues, but I’m going to insist on minimal standards when it comes to making inflammatory accusations against others — regardless of party.