Gay Patriot Header Image

Kolbe “Personally Confronted” Foley on Communications with Pages

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:37 pm - October 9, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,FoleyGate,National Politics

In my first post on Foleygate, I regretted that this story brought to light the sordid affairs of another unhappy gay man. As I wrote:

He . . . let down gay people. You can be sure social conservatives will be exploiting this to show how people like us prey on teenagers.

More often than not, it seems that when the sex lives of prominent gay men come to light, we see only those with bizarre obsessions. And their behavior helps paint a negative picture of gay male sexuality in the minds of American people. It would be as if Woody Allen or the pop-star Madonna served as the representative of straight people to American society.

Via a reader, I learned, however, of the gay Republican who should be more in the public eye, a retiring Congressman, a man I’ve met, who, on coming out publicly, focused on the same issues he always had before he was publicly identified as gay. And we learn via today’s Washington Post how this gay man, outgoing Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe, had “ppersonally confronted Foley” about his Internet communications with pages “as far back as 2000.” That’s right, one gay man took issue with the irresponsible behavior of another gay man. He showed the level of responsibility adults should show in such situations.

Through Jim Kolbe’s actions, we learn that it’s not a Congressman’s sexuality that’s the problem, but how he handles it. And while everyone knows of Ex-Rep. Foley’s immature conduct, even the Washington Post article on Kolbe devotes only a few paragraphs to the Arizona Republican’s conduct. It’s too bad this good man is not getting more media attention. Jim Kolbe, not Mark Foley, should be the public face of gay Republicans. For he is closer to us, far closer, than the disgraced Florida lawmaker.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

Share

31 Comments

  1. Did you read the NYT article that concludes that religious conservatives blame Foley, and not the party? You can almost see the chagrin in the words.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 9, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  2. If Congressman Kolbe were a RINO he’d be some kind of saint to the media.

    Comment by Attmay — October 9, 2006 @ 5:01 pm - October 9, 2006

  3. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address and his terrible spelling give him away.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 9, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  4. It depends on what the complaint was.

    Unless, like Beckel, you think even something minor should have resulted in strenuous inquiry because it concerned a gay man.

    Comment by Synova — October 9, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - October 9, 2006

  5. Patrick Sammon, the LCR president was just on CNN. He did a great job of explaining how the Foley story isn’t about sexual orientation, and how gay staffers are irrelevant.

    Comment by Will — October 9, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - October 9, 2006

  6. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address and his terrible spelling give him away.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 9, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - October 9, 2006

  7. Here’s a thought for all you Left Foley-crites.

    The age of consent in DC, where Congressional pages are housed, is 16. On present evidence, Foley always waited for pages to be 18 and no longer in the program, before he would ever proposition them. But he would start the general “friendship process”, let’s say, while they were 16 / pages – and yeah, Foley is a total creep for that.

    Now clearly, we must protect these pages – or “children” (in Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s immortal phrase) – from Foley’s “abhorrent” (again, Nancy Pelosi’s phrase) interest. Right?

    So – Let’s raise the age of consent in DC to 21. And since the problem is gay men in Democrat Bob Beckel’s view, let’s make it a gay-only increase in the age of consent.

    That would solve the problem. Law-conscious gay creeps like Foley would have to wait until the pages were 21, before getting any payoff. Surely, after all this noise, Democrats would have absolutely NO problem supporting that idea.

    Speaker Hastert should immediately introduce a bill to that effect. Let’s see how all you Nancy Pelosis, Gay Left Hypocrites, etc. react then.

    Comment by StopTheBullsh*tAlready! — October 9, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  8. While Kolbe may be a good face for gay republicans, keep in mind that the Republian party, on the whole, would prefer that gays not be part of the party at all.

    7: More sophistry to deflect the issue. Being that Republicans knew about Mr. Foley’s illegal and creepy activity make this a problem for Republicans. It’s wholly hypocritical that they claim to defend kids and values, they let this guy’s activities continue un-checked. Conservatives love to harp that “only republicans can keep you safe from terror”. Really? They don’t seem to have the balls to confront illegal activity in their own place of work.

    Comment by Kevin — October 9, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - October 9, 2006

  9. Okay this is something that is bothering me.

    I don’t think on its face being friendly should be reason to convict a gay man of sexual misconduct.

    What about a big brother type program-I am pretty sure the men involved in those programs go well beyond being over friendly, and I think the program expects them too. Does this mean gay men are unfit to be big brothers?

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - October 9, 2006

  10. just me: Big Brothers, at least the good ones, don’t do what they do in secret hope they will be able to proposition the kid later, once he turns 18 (or 21). But as it happens, I agree with you. Being friendly should not be a reason to convict a gay man of sexual misconduct.

    And Kevin: How spectacularly you manage to miss the point, as always. The point is: The Democrats’ entire anti-Foley, anti-Hastert campaign is nothing but sophistry and hypocrisy.

    You see, Kevin, it was Democrats who knew of Foley’s creepier “instant message” chats with the kids – and who have sat on them all this time, until now. That makes it a Democrat problem. We now know the Republicans didn’t know about them. The Republicans apparently only knew about Foley’s e-mails, which, while creepy, were not sexual. Even with that much, the Republicans correctly confronted Foley about.

    Really Kevin: Do try getting your facts straight sometime.

    Comment by StopTheLiesAndBullsh*t — October 9, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - October 9, 2006

  11. Really? They don’t seem to have the balls to confront illegal activity in their own place of work.

    Sex with a sixteen-year-old is not illegal in the District of Columbia; they can consent to sex.

    Therefore, the Monica rule, as pushed by Democrats like Kevin, applies; it is not illegal to have sex with a coworker as long as they are above the age of consent.

    This is where your hypocrisy becomes really, really blatant, Kevin; you’r calling something illegal which you don’t think is really a crime.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - October 9, 2006

  12. Illegal?

    Are we clear yet that anything whatsoever *was* illegal? If age of consent is 16?

    I think the behavior we’re hearing about is disgusting but my disgust doesn’t mean that I can pretend it was illegal. The fact that it was a Republican and therefore “hypocritical” doesn’t make it illegal. Being illegal is what would make it illegal.

    #6 I have four children. 15, 14, 12, and 9. I watch them like a hawk. As I explained to my oldest daughter, I watch so that she knows I’ve got her back. I watch my son. I know who they come in contact with because I pay attention. I know people who were abused as children and I take the risk seriously.

    And I know this. Inappropriate sexual interest *happens*. I can’t control other people’s thoughts about my kids and the dead last thing I want to do is to have them have to be aware of that seemy side of life. The best way for them to know when something is “off” is by talking to lots of people *without* a sexual subtext put there by me. And I expect my oldest two, unlike the younger two who *are* children, to tell a creepy grown-up where to go. LIKE, I should mention, the original page who told his folks.

    But “creepy” isn’t illegal.

    Sorry, but it’s just not. It doesn’t even become illegal if it’s my kid and not someone elses. What I can do besides keep a closer eye on things or remove my child? And in the interest of protecting *other* children, what can I do other than let someone know that “so-and-so makes my kid uncomfortable” so that if there is a pattern someone is made aware of it?

    Oh, and for what it’s worth, as a mother the concept of “age of consent” doesn’t exist. Exploitation doesn’t just happen to kids.

    Comment by Synova — October 9, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - October 9, 2006

  13. NDT and Synova:

    Age of consent is not really an issue in the Foley case (yet). I believe federal law makes it a crime for an adult to send sexually explicit instant messages or e-mails to anyone under the age of 18.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - October 9, 2006

  14. Chase in #13, it seems the investigation centers on that very question — whether it is indeed criminal to send messages such as those Foley sent to teenagers. Creepy they definitely are, but illegal, that has yet to be determined.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - October 9, 2006

  15. Synova, Thank you for stating the obvious. We do all we can as parents to protect our children, yet allow them the freedom to actually grow up and face serious issues on their own. I doubt that Monica or Chandra Levys’ parents felt any better about their daughters predicaments, simply becasue they were over the age of consent.
    It appears that the original pages’ parents were aware of the emails and asked that the issue go no further.
    But that and the fact that Foley immediately resigned were not enough for the Democrats, they were out for Repblican blood, and if they set back the Gay community by 20 years, (See Bruces’ link to Beckel), who cares.

    Dan, “It’s too bad this good man (Jim Kolbe) is not getting more media attention.” Dream on, that will never happen, nobody, gay or straight, if they live honorable respectible lives, ever gets media attention.
    Clearly there is a need for more Jim Kolbes, he probably had a lot of influence in changing the minds of his constituants about gay men.
    And to be honest, that is where it has to happen, not in the media, because the media never paints a true picture of any reality.

    Comment by Leah — October 9, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - October 9, 2006

  16. As the state attorney general is running on the Dem ticket against the Republican congresswoman the treatment of on-line stalkers is getting some play in the news. One case the guy plead guilty to attempted rape for making a date with a “14 year old” for the purpose of having sex with her. She turned out to be cops. His sentencing just came down and he got probation and counceling, no jail time. Another case that just now led to an arrest the cops were pretending to be 12. The perp was arrested in Delaware because he wouldn’t travel to where the “child” lived, so it’s just the online behavior involved.

    When it comes to on-line predator stings… do cops ever pose as 16 year olds?

    Comment by Synova — October 9, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - October 9, 2006

  17. Big Brothers, at least the good ones, don’t do what they do in secret hope they will be able to proposition the kid later, once he turns 18 (or 21). But as it happens, I agree with you. Being friendly should not be a reason to convict a gay man of sexual misconduct.

    I agree that Foley’s behavior was wrong, and there is an issue of secrecy, but my point is that we seem to be viewing “over friendly” with 20/20 hindsight, and I am having trouble with the idea that just being over friendly and gay should mean you are a pervert out to proposition teenagers.

    I agree with Synova that the real thing we need to do is equip kids to deal with the “creepy” stuff and to recognize when to call it quits, and who they need to go to, when they feel uncomfortable. But even then, good people shouldn’t have their name dragged through the mud, on the basis of over friendly, and I just can’t wrap my hand around the idea that seems to be the DNC talking point of gays being unable to be friendly-this sounds like something that should come out of James Dobson’s mouth, not various DNC folk.

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - October 9, 2006

  18. And of course, we all know the LA Times has NO agenda, right? (Sarcasm)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - October 9, 2006

  19. Nonny, dear, here is $1. Go buy a clue.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - October 9, 2006

  20. Do I understand the argument up there correctly?

    A congressman—-a person with authority—-sends sexually provocative emails/IMs to 16 year olds, trying to set them up for sex when they are over 18. Giving them liquor, even. People in the comments are arguing that it is not illegal. And it is dirty tricks when it is exposed.

    It has nothing to do with being gay or not. It has everything to do with abusing power over minors.

    There would be no scope for dirty tricks if the leadership had done their job earlier. Nor are legal arguments going to let the leadership wriggle out of this, at least in the court of public opinion.

    But I agree with Gay Patrtiot about Kolbe.

    Comment by another anon — October 10, 2006 @ 12:02 am - October 10, 2006

  21. #18: “my point is that we seem to be viewing “over friendly” with 20/20 hindsight”

    Well, the page in question didn’t need 20/20 hindsight: he thought it was “sick” right off the bat. I can’t say I disagree when one of Foley’s “friendly” comments was regarding what great shape one of the page’s teen friends was in.

    “I agree with Synova that the real thing we need to do is equip kids to deal with the “creepy” stuff and to recognize when to call it quits, and who they need to go to, when they feel uncomfortable.”

    That’s exactly what this kid did! But you and Synova, in effect, poo-poo his discomfort with what Foley wrote. Look, Foley’s problem has festered for nearly a decade and plenty of higher-ups in the GOP were aware that there was a “problem” and did nothing to stop it. That is inexcusable.

    Comment by Ian — October 10, 2006 @ 12:12 am - October 10, 2006

  22. Sort of like the way the Gerry Studds “problem” festered for over ten years in the House and then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D) did nothing about it???

    Get a clue, please.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 12:32 am - October 10, 2006

  23. too funny, this blog censures thought. good thing i have saved it to disk, anyways, this old fart with half a brain has it pretty close to reality.http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette224.html

    Comment by peter's old boyfriens — October 10, 2006 @ 12:47 am - October 10, 2006

  24. and here’s a buck peter, hastert gone by friday. and guess what you have been recorded again as a dweeb blog.

    Comment by peter's old boyfriend — October 10, 2006 @ 12:52 am - October 10, 2006

  25. 10: I stand by my original statements. Fact: A creepy guy made sexual overtures to underage teenagers for possibly over 6 years. Fact: Members of his own party up to and including the moral, public protecting leadership of the House of Represenatives knew about this. Fact: They did nothing. Stop blaming the democrats, for chrissake you have both houses of congress and the white house. I don’t think this nation has ever been subjected to such a whiny bunch of sore winners in our country’s history.

    Comment by Kevin — October 10, 2006 @ 6:29 am - October 10, 2006

  26. I don’t think this nation has ever been subjected to such a whiny bunch of sore winners in our country’s history.

    LOL!

    Someone should write a thesis on the evolution of denial based on the drift of commentary here. Of course, the obnoxioius attempt to rationalize Foley’s behavior is exactly why the public is so disgusted with the Republican leadership.

    It’s so very very helpful to keep arguing that a 16 year old is the age of consent in DC. I’m sure parents everywhere feel much better being told that because their teenage children were of legal age of consent, it’s no big deal that the Republican leadership protected a man sexually harassing their kids.

    Keep on rationalizing, boys and girls. It is exactly what’s wrong with the Republican Party — an utter refusal to own mistakes and to cover up the most disgusting behavior with lies.

    Oh yes, I know you don’t “approve” of Foley’s behavior, but then again….and after all, Nancy Pelosi, and, well there was that case of Gerry STudds 20-odd years ago…and, hey,what’s a little ephebophiliac harrassment when Mary Jo lies a’mouldering in the ground.

    Comment by jonathang — October 10, 2006 @ 8:10 am - October 10, 2006

  27. Today is Tuesday, October 10.

    Hastert is still in office.

    You lose.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 11:21 am - October 10, 2006

  28. #20 – No a-anon, you did not quite understand the argument.

    The creepy IM chats aren’t “dirty tricks when they are exposed.”

    Rather, they are dirty tricks when political opponents (Democrats in this case) are the only ones with knowledge of them and DELAY their exposure for an election cycle. And then pretend concern for “the children” (Nancy Pelosi’s phrase).

    I’m criticizing the Democrats, not because the Democrats exposed the IMs – but because the Democrats didn’t expose them quickly enough.

    Remember: Democrats have known for months about the IM chat part of it… Republicans only knew about a few e-mails that were not sexual.

    The Democrats’ behavior is not only dirty tricks, it’s sophistry. And have you noticed that the Democrats are implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) spreading the gay=pedophile meme? Doesn’t that bother you?

    Nancy Pelosi, by the way, is a woman who has no problem winking and smiling with advocates of man-boy “love” when that suits her. Clearly, she is a woman without fixed principles here.

    Comment by StopTheBullsh*tAlready! — October 10, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - October 10, 2006

  29. Stop blaming the democrats, for chrissake you have both houses of congress and the white house.

    Unfortunately, having those does not prevent Democrats from filing ethics complaints, or going to the page board, or going to the media directly.

    What Dems fail to realize is that their constant digging of “this was an open secret” or “all the pages were warned years ago” simply begs the question: how did they NOT find out?

    It’s so very very helpful to keep arguing that a 16 year old is the age of consent in DC. I’m sure parents everywhere feel much better being told that because their teenage children were of legal age of consent, it’s no big deal that the Republican leadership protected a man sexually harassing their kids.

    Well, since Dems oppose age-of-consent laws as “imposing religious dogma” and support teenage sex, what’s your point?

    Don’t think that parents who care about their children are fooled. They know the Democratic Party applauded Gerry Studds for having sex with pages. They know that Democrats are blocking their right to know that their minor-age daughters are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions. They know that Dems’ argument for why Bill and Monica having sex wasn’t wrong was that Monica was of legal age.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - October 10, 2006

  30. Nancy Pelosi, by the way, is a woman who has no problem winking and smiling with advocates of man-boy “love” when that suits her.

    As someone once said, if NAMBLA had enough votes to swing an election, the Democrats would push government subsidies for raincoats and child-sized handcuffs.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 5:48 am - October 11, 2006

  31. It would seem Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only top Democrat with a soft spot for pedophiles. Ohio Democrat Governor Candidate Refused to Condemn Pedophilia While in Congress. This relates to the House Resolution in 1999 to condemn an American Psychological Association article that said “adult-child sex” was not harmful. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) was one of only 13 congressmen not to vote in favor of the resolution.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 6:13 am - October 11, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.