The allegations he sexually abused two youths as Boy Scouts years ago are unproven, but Republican Jim West, Mayor of Spokane and former State Senate majority leader, admits he's had adult gay sex and that he sought partners online. As one part of a three-year investigation into long-standing rumors about West, The Spokane Spokesman Review had an undercover investigator pose as a 17-year-old, (supposedly turning 18 last March), and online, longtime GOP player West offered him an internship and gifts, apparently seeking a relationship and - most crucially - showing a vulnerability to blackmail by making it clear his sexual proclivities toward men must not be overtly disclosed. THIS is what's key, right now.
(Read on for the extended entry. Mac Safari users click on time stamp to continue).
Congruent with the ongoing media and activist frenzy over gay rights, one media meme (see P-I link, above) of L'Affaire West is that this closeted gay, or perhaps more accurately bi-sexual, is a flaming hypocrite: for voting to bar gays from teaching and day care jobs; for voting to outlaw consensual sex between teenagers (kind of an overbearing Nanny State approach, no?); and for quashing a legislative committee hearing on a gay anti-discrimination bill. I disagree. As long as West conducts his private life legally, he is free, in fact is arguably bound as a public official, to vote in the interests - as he perceives them to be - of the broader society, and especially the consituents who elect him. However, there is a higher standard still: he must conduct his private life so that it poses no risks for those he serves in his public life as an elected official in charge of a taxpayer-funded municipal corporation.
Moreover, if, as his legislative record indicates, West is worried about teens having consensual sex with each other, and gays having access to youth at work, it could be seen as skating too close to the edge of hypocrisy that he was seeking out a supposed teen (admittedly, one who claimed he was turning adult, or 18, in March) in a gay online forum, and offering inducements including an internship.
But the real issue here, to me, apart from the public needing to know the accuracy of the allegations by drug offender convicts that West sexually abused them as youths, is NOT hypocrisy, tho it will regrettably dominate much of the coverage and commentary to follow. Rather it is that, by seeking and in fact admittedly having sex with adult men and continuing to seek them out for that purpose, Spokane's closeted Mayor showed a hideous lapse of judgement, opening himself up to blackmail.
For that lapse alone, West should resign immediately, despite his significant achievements so far as mayor.
Here is part of what West said, in an e-mail to the newspaper researcher posing as the 17-year-old turning-18 in March, according to today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
During a Feb. 26 online conversation published in the Spokesman-Review, West wrote to someone posing as a teenager."Remember, Im very closeted. No one knows I like guys. Except the few guys Ive been with and highly trusted," West wrote.
....The Spokesman-Review said the person posing as the teenager initially indicated he was 17 when the online conversations began and later told West he turned 18 in March.
As for the undercover sting, the ends, here, justify the means. Wouldn't you want to know if the closeted and fearful bi-sexual mayor of your town was trolling the Web for adult gay men? Sheesh.
The other issue, which the GOP really has to grapple with, even while it maintains its support of traditional marriage and oppposition to gay anti-discrimination legislation, is how to believably articulate a bifurcation between the personal and political, and how to tone down the increasingly outdated belief that homosexuality is "immoral." Personally, I find the idea awfully unattractive myself. But I'm not gonna get in someone's face about it, I'm just not.
Your bible's not the last word; sorry. Gays are here; they're queer and they're not going away. You may in your heart still believe they're sinners, and "immoral," and pray for them, but as a public expression toward gays, that only makes the wedge issues sharper. Some of you will have to be more accepting and less condemning of gays, despite the discomfort and disapproval.
For their part, gays, and supporters of their legislative agenda, need to remember large segments of American society and many legislators will continue to oppose gay marriage and gay anti-discrimination laws, and that to do so does NOT, repeat, DOES NOT, make them bigots. One way to advance the debate, would be for gay advocates to compile a solid database of actual, documented financial settlements reached, around the U.S., for anti-gay discrimination. There must be dozens and dozens of such cases, right?
Right?
You're not gonna get much of anywhere with "When Did you Stop Beating Your Wife" tack (i.e., "as long as the ____ legislature refuses to pass a gay anti-discrimination law, they are, de facto, in favor of discriminating against gays").
And tolerance does not mean tolerating bad taste, and poor conduct. Too many urban gays are needlessly in everybody's face about their gayness. Get over yourselves, already. I don't really need to see gay men lasciviously tonguing each other on the cover of my local Sandinista alternative weekly newspaper, for instance. This sort of stuff, including the too-often appalling antics at Gay Pride parades, shows no pride at all, but a great insecurity. If you're confident in your sexuality, you don't need to egregiously flaunt it. Seems that somehow a lot of lesbians have grokked that.
More tolerance of "the other," all around, please.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 06, 2005 12:35 PM | Email ThisWhat I see as the problem is that a) West would seek out a relationship with a claimed 17-yr-old and that b) he would abuse the office he held by offering 'goodies' coming from holding the office in order to gain 'certain' favors. That's wrong whether you're offering these to a young homosexual male or a 21-yr-old female whitehouse intern.
And yes, it also shows bad judgment to put oneself into the position of being blackmailed. John F. Kennedy apparently wandered into that same territory himself and that indicates a terrible lack of judgment. No public official should 'go there'.
Lastly, I don't think even as a Democrat he would survive if people knew he was seeking out men on the internet and abusing the privileges of office.
Posted by: Michele on May 6, 2005 12:58 PMIf ANY person, public servant or not, is involved in illegal activity, then that should be treated on that basis, not on how someone responds to it emotionally or politically. It’s like the difference between an adjective and a verb. If it’s a verb, it’s an action. If it’s an adjective or adverb, it’s a modifier, not an action. They aren’t the same thing.
Besides, how is this any different than the allegations about Clinton? Hey Dems? It’s only sex, right???? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly points of law take on new meaning…namely being actionable.
Allegations are not the same as fact, a point not demonstrably understood by the left. One thing that you’ll not often see from them is action on such topics that is not differential depending upon party and politics. Personally, I’d turn thumbs-down on anyone in such matters, without regard to political affiliation; but actual facts, not allegations through blue-colored lenses, please.
Don't agree with everything you wrote, but proud to be on the same side with you.
Posted by: spitzen on May 6, 2005 01:14 PMRepublicans need to learn to move past any intolerance and learn to value each other for shared political ideas. Frankly, I could care less if a person is black, gay, blue-haired, etc. what matters are their ideas.
Every politician has an obligation to conduct that begets trust. How can we trust someone who was leading a double life?
I urge all closeted Republicans to be open and honest about their lives. That's what people want to see. And be more forthcoming of their political ideas, because ultimatiely that is what we care about in our politicians.
It's unfortuntate that we live in a society that has not yet learned to be fully tolerant of the different. However subsidizing that intolerance by refusing to disclose one's person is just as bad as the continued fear, religion and ignorance that perpetuate racism.
People come in many flavors, let's move on.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2005 01:18 PMIn fact, there are primary issues within a faith, such as the nature of salvation, upon which there must be agreement as definitional issues. Secondary issues exist as well, such as the means of baptism, and upon these (and tertiary issues), there are often areas in which we have room to disagree. In many ways, we must presume that “inconsistencies” will be worked out over time between the individual and the divine.
How does this matter, in light of Mr. West’s predicament? Simple. We are complex individuals with complex lives. Mr. West’s identity doesn’t come from being Rep, being a mayor, being bi-sexual, or having kids. It’s the market basket of all that he is. If it turns out that one item within that market basket breaks a law, then it should be tried on that basis, not as a condemnation of the entirety of the person. That one item is to then be worked out between the individual and the legal system.
It’s like the person who regularly writes out checks to MADD, but at the end of a long wedding day, with impaired judgment, decides that he/she is sober enough to drive home. You can’t have it both ways. Either you have a humane society that enforces sanctions against lapses of judgment, but welcomes that prodigal home after punishment/restitution, or you don’t.
The gay/left recoils in horror at the thought of having to wear a scarlet “GLBT” on their respective chests, but have no problem at all with labeling their opponents with a scarlet “hypocrite.” And is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?
(And if anybody can see any facts I've gotten wrong, could you let me know? I don't wanna get sued.)
Posted by: Joel on May 6, 2005 01:29 PMThe issue here, as Michele so eloquently said, is using his position to persuade someone into the relationship, and using taxpayer's to fund the favors. This would be equally bad if he used stockholder's money. Using his own money already has a term - prostitution.
Posted by: Fred on May 6, 2005 01:32 PMSome things should not be tolerated, and sexual abuse is one of those things.
It's not quite accurate to call the belief that homosexuality is immoral "outdated". Unless, of course, morality itself is "outdated", which is often held to be true. If morality exists, then it never gets outdated.
If your point is to change our "public expression toward gays", I'd be interested to know specifically what you have in mind. If I, as a public statement (like this one), assert that I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral... does that inherently "make wedge issues sharper"? Is it "condemning"? Do I need to be more "accepting"?
I don't believe it is. Condemnation and Acceptance are descriptive of my attitude toward an individual, toward the person involved. My belief about Morality is my attitude toward the activity. Being an individual who still engages in activity that I myself consider immoral, I have a pretty good handle on the separation between the two concepts.
I have close friends who are homosexual. Just like I have close friends who cheat on their taxes sometimes. Both activities are immoral. I can say that, and say it openly, without being "condemning" or not "accepting" them, and without needing to tone down my message to keep from being offensive.
I think this is a critical distinction in the current climate of discourse in our society.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on May 6, 2005 02:11 PMsadly, this enlightened commentary would have your presence in the Republican party relegated to a peripheral role under the auspices that you are a RINO...well, unless it was an election year.
Posted by: Rex on May 6, 2005 03:02 PMHaving said that, I have no problem being tolerant of the gay lifestyle, but tolerant does not mean acceptance. One of the problems is that we are expected to embrace a gay lifestyle and that's just not happening. Christianity teaches us to love the sinner, but hate the sin.
Sorry about the tangent. As a conservative, I hope that anyone that is in this position comes out in the open so they are not open to blackmail and lose credibility within the party. I judge a person by their values, not their sex life.
Posted by: Ken on May 6, 2005 03:40 PMI noticed that same thing last night, and wondered the same thing.
And why the double stack 72 point headline?
And why were the stories on the front page copywrited? That is very unusual in print press.
The parking garage connection was the first thing the editor at our small community newspaper commented on yesterday morning.
Now, does he apply that standard to himself as a gay or bisexual man? Because whether or not he's guilty of the sexual abuse he certainly has had close contact with children as a Scout Leader.
In addition, the law he attempted to pass may have allowed (or even required) state agencies to investigate whether potential teachers or day care workers were homosexuals, making a private issue very public. Yet he's quick to cry "private business" when it applies to him.
Seems to me like he's a perfect example of a hypocrite.
PS - Since he doesn't believe homosexuals should be protected from discrimination in the workplace, he'd be OK if he was fired soley on the basis of his homosexuality/bisexuality, correct? Somehow I doubt he'd agree now.
Posted by: Doug A on May 6, 2005 07:26 PM(This may come as a delayed revelation to non-thinkers and leftists....but I repeat myself ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 07:52 PMDo you feel that way about everyone or just "urban gays?" Because gay friends of mine make the point that they're exposed to straight couples who feel the need to "flaunt their relationship" all the time. Apparently it's only an issue when gay people do it.
Anyway, I'm not sure where you hang out but I see plenty of PDA among lesbians, just as I do among gay men or straight couples.
Posted by: D. Andersen on May 6, 2005 08:11 PMRather, I'm talking about the ceaseless gay identity meme all over cities like Seattle, the endless use of arts, education, media, advertising, and other aspects of the culture to continually "celebrate" gayness.
What I'm trying to say - and I hope this makes some sense - is, look this is Seattle, we frickin' accept you already. Yes, stuff (prejudice) still happens here: to Jews, straights (really!), men (especially), blacks, whites, and Asians.
Unpleasant sometimes, yes, but life goes on and he liberal myth of a perfectable world drives a lot of dunderheadedness.
What about violence against gays. Fortunatley, very rare here. What about Micah Painter's beating? A few more plays celebrating gayness, a few more public initiatives, or poetry readings to celebrate gayness, would not have saved Micah Painter from his beating at the hands of idiotic immigrant anti-gay bigots.
What such overtly cultural events and initiatives DO do, is make certain people, straight and gay, feel better about themselves. After a certain point of repitition, I believe this becomes narcissistic. Personal affirmation ultimately is internal, not external.
Posted by: Matt R. on May 6, 2005 08:50 PMActually, I don't think this behavior is contained to pedophiles. People in general tend to be less impulsive as they get older in all areas of behavior.
Posted by: Doug A on May 7, 2005 01:34 AMMatt, it's good to read someone on the right arguing in favor of moderation and tolerance of someone whose lifestyle has been hard for some of you to allow, much less accept. The hateful wattage is set so high, it shows you're thinking for yourself and articulating a unique perspective.
I would change your last sentence to read: If you have been someone who condemned gays , it's time to stop and change direction. It is time to accept that condemnation of gays is intolerance, and therefore wrong. Move on.
As for hypocrisy, here's what my Webster's says, "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; esp: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." So, oh yeah, he's a hypocrite alright. It doesn't matter what his constituents wanted. He apparently pretended to believe a gay man should not be allowed near children while he sought out and became a Scout leader of boys. This seems fairly clear to me.
However, I think there is something worse than hypocrisy here. Hypocrisy is a rather pathetic and embarrassing personal failure. I think this is something more cynical. This is about using homosexuality and people's fears and prejudices to build a powerbase. The right in America has often used or created public dislike of one group by another to garner power. What was McArthy doing if not manipulating the public to gain power? These are not victimless ploys. People have been hurt. Someone, perhaps West himself was, can be trapped afraid to share who they really are. They can suffer assaults, threats, humiliation. It would be great to hear the moderate voices of the right denounce the leaders who build careers around gay bashing or any other form of baiting. It only creates violence, fear, division and mistrust.
We have established that Mayor Jim West's behavior was unethical and he should step down as mayor. With this in mind:
Does the proposed solution increase or diminish the people of Spokane's independence? How so?
What are the possible solutions to the dilemma?
Who are the people most likely to be affected positively and negatively?
How are people likely to be affected?
And finally, Are people acting in ways that tend to increase or diminish the quality of their lives.
Please send your response to me via email - annalisajensen@aol.com
Again, I really appreciate your help.
Anna