More On "The List"

The National Journal has an interesting article on the reaction of gay Republican staffers to the Foley debacle.  How much is true I cannot say, but here we go:

As he straddled the threshold of the closet, Foley created a welcoming atmosphere for gay staffers. "He made a great spot for gay Republicans to find a place to work," said a former Foley aide.

Several gay Republicans who worked for other lawmakers found his suite of offices to be a safe zone and would drop by to kibitz. Others benefited from his advice. He counseled one in his dealings with blogger Mike Rogers, who publicly disclosed the identities of a dozen gay Republican staff members.

Foley's friends ruefully speak of knowing that Foley was friendly with congressional pages. One recalls jokingly telling Foley to be careful not to confirm a stereotype about sexual predators. Foley laughed, a friend says.

But then, in the fall of 2005, a page sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, complained. After Foley had furtive discussions with House officials, his friends warned him to police himself. And one former Foley staffer recalls asking the lawmaker directly whether there was anything more serious floating around. Foley, according to the former aide, said no.

The debate about what happened next consumed the Capitol this week. One senior Republican official sympathetic to Speaker Dennis Hastert said that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself. At that time, Fordham was the chief aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Fordham's assurances, according to this account, apparently were enough to persuade Hastert's staff not to recommend further action.

But Fordham this week strongly disputed the charge that he interceded on Foley's behalf. Fordham instead contends that he was frustrated that his efforts to rein in Foley's questionable behavior had failed and that he subsequently sought help.

Fordham told ABC News that in 2003 he warned Hastert's powerful chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that he was worried about Foley's penchant for doting on male pages. Palmer, according to Fordham, subsequently notified Hastert. Palmer responded that Fordham's version of events is untrue. And a House leadership aide wondered aloud why Fordham, who professed to be surprised by Foley's conduct on Monday, was saying two days later that he remembered having long-standing anxieties.

This would tie in nicely to the Open Secret notion that Foley's dispositions were a bipartisan talking point.

That said, the real laugher is here:

Robert Traynham, the communications director for conservative Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, is openly gay.

And indeed he is, based on this 2005 story.

So (here comes the punchline), let's cut back to David Corn on "The List" of gay Republican staffers:

What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors. That is, if Santorum knows about his orientation.

Investigative journalism's finest moment.  Jiminy - I didn't even need to look at a list of names to see that Corn was misdirecting his fire when he singled out Santorum - somebody buy the guy a subscription to 'Google'.

I have more on "The List" below, so don't get stalled here.

Comments

[clarice]

Santorum's aide is gay AND BLACK! And when he was outed, Santorum praised him and said he was proud to have him on his staff.

Oh, those narrow minded Christers (or is it anti-Christers?).

[Geek, Esq.]

An ugly story that just keeps on getting uglier.

What's interesting is that there are at least three groups with plausible motives for this kind of disclosure:

1) The Michael Rogers gay activists;

2) Social cons who want to purge the ranks of infidels;

3) Democrats who would love nothing more than to see a story about a gay Republican cabal circulate amongst the GOP's homophobic base.

I expect that the Democrats have steered WELL clear of this list--potentially harmful and they really don't need to pour any gasoline on the fire.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some cooperation going on between the social cons and the gay activists--both of whom believe that gay Republicans should buy into the "with us or against us" mindset.

I suspect that both the social cons and the gay activists want this list revealed, but would greatly prefer that the other side do it.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

When did the left assemble talking points that the entire nation of social conservatives is presided over by Fred Phelps?

The Phelps church might as well be called the church of Phelps, Phelps, and Phelps. It's basically the entire Phelps family and that's it.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Geek Esq: Where is the supporting evidence for this claim?

2) Social cons who want to purge the ranks of infidels

[SteveMG]

I love this caricature that the Left has (see Geek, esq above) of the social conservatives and their views on gay people.

Of course, this is the same Geek who calls Glen Reynolds a fascist. So, if Reynolds is a fascist, one can imagine what he considers James Dobson to be.

SMG

[clarice]

Left's definition of "fascism" =everyone who doesn't see things according to the party line.

[RBMN]

As I recall, the Santorum quote is Sen. Santorum just quoting a Supreme Court justice who was making this point: Every new court decision, by its nature, opens new doors in the Law--some that are best left closed. Nothing is ever as cut and dried as you think it is.

[Geek, Esq.]

Well, here's one article (but this feels like proving that the Earth is round):

Baltimore Sun.

Gays hold many prominent and visible positions in government and business in Washington. But inside the GOP ranks, being gay is still a risky proposition. In fact, with the exception of the military, perhaps no institution in America has as strong and secretive a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to homosexuality as the Republican Party.

"Obviously, the far right has kind of got a stranglehold on the Republican Party," said Paul Koering, a Republican state senator from Minnesota who acknowledged his homosexuality last year. "The very first time I ran, I literally almost made myself sick worrying about somebody finding out I was gay." . . .

Staffers from both parties said they believe that several other Republican members of Congress are gay and remain, at least officially, in the closet.

"It's kind of like a secret society," said a former congressional staffer who is gay and who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years. The trend began with the 2002 midterm elections, when GOP leaders made the strategic decision to use religious conservative groups' opposition to gay marriage to drive voter turnout. For those groups, which consider homosexuality a deviant "lifestyle," perhaps no issue riles their membership more.

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asserted this week in a message to supporters.

David Catania, a gay former Republican who serves on the District of Columbia City Council, said he left the party over its promotion of the Defense of Marriage Act. He expressed sympathy for his gay friends who remain active Republicans.

"They've hitched their stars to the party, hoping to hunker down and ride out the Taliban-esque wing, hoping their views will come back into the mainstream," Catania said. "It's got to be very demoralizing for them."

[Geek, Esq.]

Here's another article:

Washington's community of gay Republicans includes at least one member of Congress, more than a dozen high-ranking congressional aides, current and former White House staffers, advisers to the Pentagon, press strategists for prominent conservatives, several well-known journalists, and a legion of influential lobbyists.

Many choose not to publicly disclose their sexual orientation because they're afraid that they would face retaliation from their employers. Others believe that their employers might face retaliation from their constituents. Still others try to strike a balance, confiding in a select group but maintaining a safer, though ambiguous, public identity.

Contacted by National Journal, many declined to comment, and those who did speak asked that their names not be used. A few expressed the fear that any article about powerful gay Republicans could trigger a witch hunt. Indeed, in the wake of Foley's resignation, an e-mail purporting to identify gay Republican staff members circulated on Capitol Hill. Some presumably heterosexual Republicans whispered to reporters that a "gay subculture" had penetrated the highest ranks of the party and had protected Foley at the expense of their majority.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1005nj1.htm

[norm d'plume]

from geeks first article...

One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years.

I wonder if the "gay Republicans" cited are Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.

[Blenheim]

Grotesque and newsworthy as "the list" story is, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the mystery tipster. My review, for what it's worth, has me wondering about Brian Smoot, Alexander's former COS. Maybe the LA Page contacted HIM instead of Alexander's office (maybe they met while the Page was applying to the Page program or while the Page was in DC?) Alexander immediately suspected Smoot, but he denied being the tipster. Still, the Smoot theory works as a matter of motive, timing, the FL newspaper connection, and the heavily redacted faxes. Maybe Smoot edited the emails, so as to remove any reference to him? Fordham was also in the right place at the right time, and also has a motive to cover his tracks, but what would be his motive vis-a-vis Foley? Maybe there was bad blood?

[topsecretk9]

I wonder if the "gay Republicans" cited are Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.

HEH.

I still say my idea of a Gay Republican presser/coming out party in which they reiterate they are gay and still going to vote however they like and that includes against gay marriage would be just desserts for the McCarthycrat's witch hunt.

[Marianne]

This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position. It is not primarily an issue of gender or sexual orientation.

It is totally wrong to hijack this issue to promote any agenda related (pro or con) to the rights of gay Americans in society, including the right to privacy.

[Keepers of The List]

From the Geek article....

A few expressed the fear that any article about powerful gay Republicans could trigger a witch hunt.

And indeed, we Democrats are happy to launch one.

We threw the feminist movement under the bus to salvage Clinton's presidency, and we have no qualms about throwing the gay movement under the bus to salvage the '06 elections.

[topsecretk9]

--Fordham was also in the right place at the right time, and also has a motive to cover his tracks, but what would be his motive vis-a-vis Foley? --

Does their need to be any bad blood with Foley? He's republican, that's about all a Democrat needs to hate.

However, the DCCC put a hit out on "turncoat" Alexander when he made the switch...

–And by the way, everybody, we could use a few ducats for the court challenge, and oh yes, taking the House! So if you can spare it, Punish the Turncoat.—

and

…Alexander’s abrupt party switch shocked Democratic lawmakers, who called him a “traitor” and a “turncoat” who betrayed them without notice. Alexander filed as a Republican just minutes before the filing deadline on Aug. 6 [2004], just days after first filing as a Democrat….

and

It was a bitter parting of the ways between Nancy Alexander, wife of overnight party-switching sensation Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), and the Congressman's staff, all six of whom quit over their boss's hush-hush decision, which they learned about secondhand.

When half of them, including Chief of Staff Brian Smoot, went to tender their resignations and turn in their keys last Monday morning, they found Mrs. Alexander in the office going through the trash, Smoot told HOH. He said he assumed she was making sure the staff had not disposed of anything important. "Of course we had not," he said.

Then the boss's wife asked him about her husband's dry cleaning. "I told her she should worry about Rodney's dry cleaning," recalled the 27-year-old Smoot.

Although he could not remember exactly what she said, Smoot said Mrs. Alexander excoriated the three aides - Smoot, Nell Wilson and Traci Vincent - accusing them of being disloyal and saying they drove her husband to switch parties.

Then, Smoot said, Mrs. Alexander, who has a doctorate in mathematics, followed the aides into the hallway yelling, "Good riddance. Praise the Lord!" before issuing one final silent but universally satisfying expression: the finger!

"Yes, I can confirm it. She flipped us the bird," Smoot said, still weary with shock from his boss's party-switch.

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/000848.html

So, did Alexander have a hanger on staff member with a little closeted hate or still friendly with former staffers? They all go to work for others, Traci Vincent went to work for William Jefferson, I believe.

[Wilson's a Liar]

Can't anyone see the real message here?

DEMOCRATS. ARE. LOSING. THESE. ELECTIONS.

Their last "hail Mary" play is to try to turn off evangelical voters and make them stay home. So, let's "out" George Allen as a Jew! Let's throw out "The List" of gay Republicans! Let's get that insinuation about Ken Mehlman back on the front page! Let's remind those troglodytes in Pennsylvania that Rick Santorum has a homo working for him!

It's all so very Liberal. And so very predictable.

[sad]

Voting on the basis of sexual orientation or practices or moral view thereof is so shortsighted. Islamists will guarentee no diverisity on any issue if they get a stranglehold.

[Geek, Esq.]

The Democrats aren't the ones circulating this list.

It's gay activists who are trying to goad social conservatives into releasing it.

The Democrats don't need to salvage anything--this has been a massive self-inflicted wound on the part of the Republicans.

[Neo]

I found the order of the first excerpt to be odd. I goes from "Kirk Fordham, last spring promised ... Fordham instead contends that he was frustrated" to "Fordham told ABC News that in 2003, making you think this was how he handled the frustration.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

FYI: CREW's version of timeline may have just changed. I'm seeking confirmation.

[The Unbeliever]

Oh, those narrow minded Christers (or is it anti-Christers?).

It's Christianists, of course. Just ask gay "Republican" Andrew Sullivan.

...oops, did I just out Andy? Was he on The List which causes poor David Corn such angst? DOH!

[Neo]

I've come the the conclusion that either

1) unage workers of any kind are prohibited on the Hill
2) even one "hit" on an unage worker will mean "censure" with no forgiveness or exception. Any addional "hits" mean explusion with no forgiveness or exception.

Frankly, the second option will eventually lead to the first once the unage workers catch on to just how powerful the second option makes them.

[cathyf]

I love this caricature that the Left has (see Geek, esq above) of the social conservatives and their views on gay people.

Well, I have my armchair psychologist theory of why...

The caricature on the left is that social conservatives are all frigid and frustrated, and want to spread the misery around by sending out the anti-sex stormtroopers to prevent everyone else from having sex. In fact, NORC data has shown consistently over years of surveying that the more conservative and more religious people are, the more frequently they have sex and the better the sex is that they have. (That would be the NORC survey that Jesse Helms tried for years to de-fund, by the way. I'm pretty sure that the "except for Jesse, 'prudes' have better sex more often" conclusion was especially surprising to Jesse!)

Ok, so there you are a libertine who has sold your soul for pleasure, and it's going to be vitally important to you to deny deny deny that the monogamous squares who still have their souls are in fact having better sex lives than you.

[Dale Armstrong]

Marianne:

"This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position."

I agree COMPLETELY!

Which is why I just KNOW, YOU will agree with ME, when I give you this Hypothetical situation:

A 50-ish something Man, in a Position of Power, let's just be ridiculous, and say PRESIDENT; uses his position to establish an inappropriate relationship with a teenager, like 19 years old, let's be even MORE ridiculous, and say an INTERN, who was identified as a result of the adult's position (PRESIDENT)!

So, I know since you agree it was the right thing for Foley to resign, based upon his misdeeds; do you agree our Hypothetical PRESIDENT should (should've actually) resign(ed)???

Just checking...

[topsecretk9]

I am sorry...but did Mike Roger's just step in a pile of poo poo here...(last night? on Tucker Carlson)

...I did receive the e-mails a little bit before they went up on Stop Sex Predators, and the Stop Sex Predators site administrator apparently, from an Gmail account, claiming that, told me about them, that they were posted there as well. And then when I had first received them I made sure that I immediately confirmed that they had been handed over to the proper law enforcement authorities prior to my obtaining them

1. StopSexpred contacted Mike Roger's to tell Mike Roger's about them and that "they" were there? Sorry, um...this is beyond weird ...(and wasn't Roger's comment left on the site before the story broke?)

2. He says he immediately confirmed they had been handed over to the proper authorities - CREW was the outfit that handed them over to authorities and CREW DID NOT POST THEM UNTIL ***AFTER*** ABC broke the story

HOW DID Mike Roger know to contact CREW, how did Mike Rogers know CREW had them and who did Mike Rogers talk to? Who did Mike Roger contact?

[Dale Armstrong]

TS9: NICE one! Sounds like someone just "outted" themselves!

[Neo]

It's gay activists who are trying to goad social conservatives into releasing it.

No. It's gay activists trying to make it look like social conservatives will releasing it, to cover up who wants to release it, the gay activists.

[topsecretk9]

One more thing...Mike R says he had them before they went up on SSP, but SSP contacted him to say

told me about them, that they were posted there as well.

AS WELL?

[AMDG]

One of the biggest things that the Republicans have going for them is the state of delusion that the Democrats are in.

The 'list' and the issue about George Allen's "Jewishness" bring me back to Kedwards mentioning the orientation of Mary Cheney in two separate events.

The goal of all three is to suppress Republican base turnout. The reasoning behind it, apparently, is that the Democrats buy into the MSM/Hollywood stereotype that we out here in flyover country are racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic morons.

They buy into it because they truly hate us and this hatred so pervades their beings that all logic, humanity and principle are wiped out.

I believe that this goes beyond BDS - That is just one manifestation of their disease. In 2008 the BDS will mutate into RDS and before BDS it was GDS.

God help us if they come into power.

[clarice]

Hmm, Ts.Good work.Point 2 is very damning to CREW.

[Dale Armstrong]

....ah, they are Mind Readers!

Yeah, that's it, Mind Readers! That's the ticket....

[Gabriel Sutherland]

TS: nice catch. So the SSP admin knew that Rogers had the emails. Rogers indicates that with the "as well".

I need to be schooled on the CREW link to Rogers. Tucker's transcript doesn't say that Rogers mentioned CREW at all.

[cathyf]

This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position.

It's about teenaged adults entering into relationships with a 50-something adult who was not in any position of power over them. And whether the relationships were appropriate or inappropriate is none of anybody's business outside of the consenting adults involved.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

AMDG: Remember who the secular progressives turned to to explain why they lost the 2004 election?

They turned to Thomas Frank and his 'What's the Matter with Kansas' book. Frank says that the Republican party has convinced social conservatives to vote against their economic interests. That's his thesis. The Democrats turned to a fellow that thinks social conservatives are willing to vote themselves down the economic ladder.

Furthermore, Frank argues that the Democrat Party must invoke the FDR message, but he neglects to mention that there isn't a Great Depression at the moment. He thinks the Democrats should pretend their is a Great Depression and invoke FDR anyway.

[Blenheim]

Top:
I was suggesting that Fordham could be the tipster, and wondering whether there was bad blood between him and Foley. If he were the tipster, and wanted a career in Republican politics, he would obviously need to cover his tracks.

I've also wondered about a "hanger-on" in Alexander's office. News reports seem to suggest that the entire staff quit, however.

[Neo]

The biggest thing that the media have not picked up on yet is that the longer they look gleeful over the Foley affair, the more they are pissing off the Republican base.

The base, if nothing else, doesn't like being hit with a 2 X 4 by smiling and laughing folks who expect them to ask for another.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Alexander's former staff that resigned would not be a "former Republican staffer". Alexander Bolton still says it's a Republican. Brian Ross and ABC still say it is a former Congressional staffer.

Are any of Alexander's departed staff former employees of Republicans?

[Dick Tuck]

"One senior Republican official sympathetic to Speaker Dennis Hastert said that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself."

But Hastert claimed he didn't know anything. Does it really strike anyone as sick that Repbulican leadership would tell some staffer, who wasn't even Foley's staffer, to make sure this sexual predator stops preying on pages? Is that how they exercise their responsibility toward those kids? Tell the predator to stop?

What a joke.

[topsecretk9]

And lets not forget the version SSP has is vastly formatted differently than CREW's so-called weird recreated set.

---I need to be schooled on the CREW link to Rogers. Tucker's transcript doesn't say that Rogers mentioned CREW at all.---

CREW is the outfit that turned them OVER to authorities (in July apparently)

Rogers obtained them and "confirmed" they had been handed over to the proper authorities...

And then when I had first received them I made sure that I immediately confirmed that they had been handed over to the proper law enforcement authorities prior to my obtaining them

Who did Rogers confirm they had been turned over to Authorities with? Not the FBI or they'd ask for his copies, right? Someone confirmed they had been turned over and the only ones to turn them over was CREW, and CREW did not go public until AFTER ABC...it suggests at least a coordinated effort here. Someone in contact with CREW or CREW told him they'd been turned over.

[Neo]

Blenheim: If it didn't come from Foley's office, it had to go through Alexander's office. Hastert mentioned yesterday that the Speaker's Office did not retain a copy of the 2005 e-mails, so if it didn't come from the page or his folks, it had to come out of Alexander's office.

Dick Tuck: make the distinction between Hastert and Hartert's Office. It seems the spring deal was with the office.

[sad]

Remember the sourcing from the Plame affair and how "creative" that turned out to be. Remember also how people with hard left agendas (scary larry) like to identify themselves as Republicans when dishing lies about republicans.

[Blenheim]

Gabriel:
Maybe it's a play on words. Given the party switcharoo, ALL of Alexander's departed staff are former employees of Republicans. Is that a little too cute?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

TS: I think that case for a link between Roger's description of "proper authorities" and CREW's description of the FBI is a weak one.

Rogers needs to indicate who exactly he views as the "proper authorities". He has already denied that he is the editor of SSP. He would confirm or deny if "proper authorities" were CREW. Someone should ask him.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Blenheim: Those would be awfully loose words to characterize staff terminated just hours after their boss registered as a Republican as "Republican staffers".

This is a good question that one could pose to Alexander Bolton. Would he characterize Alexander's former staff as "Republican staffers"?

[Marianne]

Cathy F, you can blame the teens and maybe in 1 or more cases the teen initiated the contact and/or egged him on. But the 3 former pages ABC reported on last night all claim that the Congressman initiated contact with them.

[topsecretk9]

--…Alexander’s abrupt party switch shocked Democratic lawmakers, who called him a “traitor” and a “turncoat” who betrayed them without notice. Alexander filed as a Republican just minutes before the filing deadline on Aug. 6 [2004], just days after first filing as a Democrat….--

They were pissed at Alexander...is it beyond belief someone went to work for him, with a closeted meanie agenda?

--Top:
I was suggesting that Fordham could be the tipster, and wondering whether there was bad blood between him and Foley.--

Yes, I re-read what you said. Sorry.

However, Fordham apparantly tried to cut a deal with Ross so he wouldn't go with the IM's.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Update: In my little FYI post earlier I mentioned that CREW's version of the Foley email timeline may have changed. I can now report that the timeline did not change. CREW's spokesperson just fumbled, but recovered her own fumble.

[clarice]

Marianne. I notice ABC has a tip line for former Foley pages. Unfortunately, they do not require identification so anyone could send stuff in. Do any of these three have documentation. Have any revealed his identity so his story can be tested?

[SunnyDay]

Has anyone noticed AJ's notes on the dates of the faxes - it looks like they would have been faxed from LA during the Katrina mess. Is that likely?

[T Miller]

I really don't know what to make of CREW, but they have a spokesperson who gives live interviews, while the FBI has unnamed sources. Often the FBI has an identified spokeperson, so why not this time?