Kolbe can't be outed, so who is it?

Lawrence O'Donnell wrote in his Huffington Post blog on 10/5:

The LA Times has outed Kirk Fordham today. He will not be the last closeted gay Republican outed by this scandal.

'This scandal' meaning, the Foley scandal. So far we have heard nothing about this, to my knowledge, other than the news that Jim Kolbe's connections to pages is being investigated. But Kolbe, who had already been planning to retire, is the only openly gay Republican member of Congress.

Raw Story just reported this morning:  It's Kolbe: House Page Investigation Widens, linking an AP story regarding the 1996 camping trip taken by Republican Kolbe along with "two former pages and others."

So who is the closeted Republican still to be named?

•  Oh, please....

  Please God, please, please, PLEASE let it be Santorum.....

  by kestrel9000 on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:30:19 AM PDT

  •  *I'll be happy with any high profile Republican*

    But if by some miracle, it's Bush or Rove, I'll start going to church again.

    by cackyp on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:18:13 PM PDT

    •  Google This

      "Hastert Asian Gay Boy" and see what you find.

      That's all I'm saying. My lips are sealed.

      by Da Buddy on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:33:26 PM PDT

  •  That was my guess, too

    Little Ricky is just a little "off". Plus it would be quite ironic, as he is such a sanctimonious asshole. So, yes, please, please let it be Little Ricky.

    by bewert on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:21:13 PM PDT

    •  Could be a DEMOCRAT

      I read somewhere that the Republicans were planning a "counter-strike" sex scandal against a democrat, that the Dem in question was aware of their plan, and was preparing for the release/fallout.

      This is their way of taking the spotlight off of Foley.

      by Da Buddy on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

      •  Guess we were both wrong--re: Larry Craig

        n/t

        by bewert on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 04:38:50 PM PDT

        •  How is this going to affect matters in Idaho

          and elsewhere?

          by superba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 05:09:24 PM PDT

•  Oh Please...

  Please God PLEASE, PLEASE ...

  let's stop worrying about who bats for which team.

  It's not about gayness. Yeah, plenty of rethugs are repressed closet cases. So are most homophobes. Didn't you people ever see American Beauty? So what?

  The scandal is about abuse of power. As long as we keep it about gayness, Pat Robertson can say shit like Mark Foley was "just doing what gay people do."

  So knock it off.

  by leftilicious on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    It might be better for us if the next one turns out to have been going after teen-age girl pages anyway.

    by Brain Donor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:43:28 AM PDT

  •  not about gayness

    But it is about "concealed"  gayness around young pages, since it is coming out of house page investigation.
    That is what this is about.  The concealment of people with a predilection  for young American pages in the House.
    If you are a young female page and a congressman asks you out and you know he is heterosexual, you might think twice about the invitation.
    If you are a young male page and a congressman asks you out and you think he is heterosexual you might NOT think anything about that invitation.
    This is why the concealment of what team you play for matters.
    Pat Robertson isn't going to stop saying what he is saying and Foley made a decision to stay in the closet because it gave him access to what he liked.  Gay Republican youths.

    by TexMex on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:46:39 AM PDT

    •  Homosexuality or Pedifilia.

      they are separate issues.

      these Congress people/staffers are Pedafiles.

      I thought that this had been resolved before.

      Is Kolbe gay or a pedafile, or both?

      by jackinthebox4 on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

      •  Gay

        Kolbe's gay. Kolbe also says that there was discussion about Foley's innapropriate relationships with pages in 2001 - I suspect that may be why he's being investigated.

        A Hastert-controlled congress would not be investigating Kolbe if there was any chance he had been involved in the Foley thing. However, Hastert would most certainly want him investigated if he jeopardized Hastert's claims about how long they'd known.

        Interesting Kirk Fordham, who also says they knew earlier than they said, is also being attacked as gay. They really, really, don't want the Republican base to listen to those people.

        by Banana Republicans on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:32:08 PM PDT

    •  Wrong

      But it is about "concealed" gayness around young pages, since it is coming out of house page investigation.

      What in the hell are you talking about?

      by pharoah on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:21:46 PM PDT

    •  You Are ALL Wrong!

      It's about covering up inappropriate sexaul advances towards CHILDREN.

      Whether the advances were homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise, THEY WERE WRONG. And the Rethugs furthered the crime by attempting to cover up this despicable activity.

      by Da Buddy on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:03:43 PM PDT

  •  You're missing my point.

    If indeed another high-ranking Republican is unexpectedly revealed as having hidden his sexual orientation, we can confidently assume that he hid it because he was using his position to support, in public, anti-gay legislation or attitudes, as so many closeted Republicans have done before him.  

    It goes without saying that another revelation of this kind will be very damaging to Republicans--the only other 'team' I am interested in w/r/t this matter.

    Sure, it is every kind of wrong to have to be so concerned about 'who bats for which team.'  But because our opponents are very concerned about this issue, at the moment it has the potential to affect the whole balance of power in this country.  

    by superba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

  •  To me its more about honesty

    I find it repugnant that closeted Rethugs can be so virulently anti-gay. Just one more lie in a whole wall of them...

    by bewert on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:22:36 PM PDT

•  Outed for what?

  Being gay?  Or being a child predator?
  It matters because there are a whole host of the former and probably only a handful of the latter.  There has been a rumor since the first week of the Foley scandal that there was at least one other Congressman who might have been hanging with pages, but never any specific indication that that person was gay.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:35:05 AM PDT

  •  Or for hypocrisy?

    I thought the GOP impeachment efforts back in the 1990s were wrong.  But loved it when Larry Flynt offered $million to out adulterous Republicans.  Not because their conduct was wrong, but because of the hypocrisy of it all.

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:28:06 PM PDT

    •  Well, Larry was brilliant because

      he saved the Clinton presidency and he knew what he was doing.  The GOP had people in such fear about their past indiscressions that many voted to impeach for fear of being exposed themselves.  Just when the affair was thrown to the Senate he offered his reward which was essentially a counter balance to the GOP threat of exposure.  All of a sudden, Clinton was miracullously acquitted.  I always wished that he hadn't taken his offer off the table.  If Americans were told the truth about just how mortal their elected officials really are, these kinds of black mail situations would not be possible.

      Flynt pulled a brilliant tactical move and saved the republic which was snatched away eventually, but saved it at the time none the less. I am not sure that exactly counts as exposing hypocrisy as much as it was simply using the issue against Republicans the way they used it against Democrats.

      Exposing hypocrisy - or better yet healing - would have been to expose every illicit adulterous affair that ever was had on the Hill so as to totally desensitze Americans to the issue so that we could focus on things that really matter.  I mean Clinton's blow job would never have hurt me or the republic had the Republicans not made it a problem.

      In other words, as long as they are screwing the American public, and they stick with adult relationships, I really don't care who is zoomin' whom over there.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

•  Karl Rove

  Come on, look at the guy.    

  by egarratt on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:35:37 AM PDT

  •  So totally yes.

    by Last Lemming on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:57:15 AM PDT

  •  Jeff Sessions

    Has always been a blip on my gaydar.

    by Puffin on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:41:51 PM PDT

  •  I am not a betting woman

    BUT as I have commented just recently here, I think authors Isikoff and Corn hinted toward this in their book Hubris - see page 244

    Rove and Novak were "intimately close" and occasionally socialized together, according to Al Hunt.  But neither spoke about it publicly. Rove was rarely mentioned in Novak's columns (although when he was, it was in a positive light). "I can't tell anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject, even the time of day, on the record.

    by franziskaner on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:55:23 PM PDT

•  Um, there are many

  There are many gay Republican staffers who are in the closet, either officially or in real life.  O'Donnell's post doesn't rule out staffers--in fact, he explicitly includes Fordham.

  by RequestedUsername on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:37:45 AM PDT

•  Help me, I've lost track...

  ...are David Drier and Ken Mehlmen in or out?

  Maybe we need Heidi Klum to tell us...

  by wonkydonkey on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

  •  David Drier and Ken Mehlmen

    They are out to everyone but the MSM who continue to coverup their hypocrisy.

    by CCSDem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:58:04 AM PDT

•  Check here regularly for clues!

  http://www.blogactive.com/

  Also, on today's Ed Schultz show, the blogactive guy will  out sitting Republican senator (albeit not one who's up for election)

  schultz's listen on line link: http://krxa540.com/

  (And I think apparently Santorum is straight but his chief of staff is gay. It's hard to keep them all straight ... errr ... I mean ...)

  by timba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:39:34 AM PDT

  •  lol

    That's what Foley went to the Scientologists for, isn't it?

    by Brain Donor on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:45:10 AM PDT

•  I suspect...

  I suspect that you're confusing events.

  My guess is that the ethics board is investigating Kolbe, as they should.  

  I don't suspect that Kolbe has actually done anything wrong but apparently one person on the camping trip said that Kolbe was very friendly with one or two of the pages.  I can't see how the ethics committee has any alternative but to investigate that in today's climate.  (And they should investigate regardless of climate.)

  Will other Republican gays be outed?  Sure.  Many already have been, at least to selected individuals including some right-wing religious leaders.  Do a search for the "List".

  Big problem here, for me, is the confusion between gay and sexual predator.  Let's out the sexual predators if there are any.  Be they gay or straight.

  And let's be the liberal party.  Leave people's sexual preference out of politics.

  by BobTrips on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:39:57 AM PDT

  •  agree, except

    Leave people's sexual preference out of politics

    sexual orientation.  

    I never decided to be straight, nor did I prefer to be straight.  Preference infers a choice, and for everything I learned in medical school and life, there is vast evidence that there is biologic imperative, and nature plays a majority role over nurture in this and many other things.

    by vome minnesota on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:57:07 AM PDT

    •  Thanks...

      orientation

      That was the word I was looking for.  Just couldn't drudge it up at the moment.

      by BobTrips on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:03:50 PM PDT

  •  perhaps though...

    It could be to smear Kolbe, who said they knew about Foley in 2001, and prevent that claim from gaining traction.

    Kolbe's openly gay. He isn't trying to hide who he is. Foley, on the other hand, is, er, was, in the closet, and is a pedophile.

    by Banana Republicans on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

  •  Sure

    Leave people's sexual preference out of politics.

    Except when they use politics against other's sexual orientation (I saw your correction).

    When a closeted (or semi-closeted) gay politician uses his or her bully pulpit to attack fellow gay men and women, or to restrict their rights, they deserve to be outed.

    At least, once they are out, people can see their hypocrisy for what it is.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:31:04 PM PDT

•  The Blogactive take

  You have to listen to the guy - quite a good speaker whether you agree with him or not - his position is that he will out gays who work for anti-gay political agendas. In addition to today's senator, he also claims to be planning to out a gay but anti-gay sitting congressman before the election

  by timba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

•  Sexual orientation should not be an issue

  when put on the scale of reckless govt spending, foreign policy, deceit,lies, power grabbing, invading general privacy and what not....it would be well suited for the said blogger to notify whoever it is and tell them to get back to the issues...since their sexual orientation should not be one of them.

  by Peter Laesch on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 11:52:29 AM PDT

  •  It's not. Concealment is.

    The question here is, will there be more damaging revelations for the Republicans owing to the page scandal. For example, a closeted gay Republican is liable to be a Republican who works for anti-gay legislation. The supporters of a Republican who works for anti-gay legislation are liable to withdraw their support if they find out that such a person is himself gay. In short, this is about deceit, and the potential cost of deceit at the ballot box.

    by superba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:07:54 PM PDT

  •  sex. orientation IS the issue

    much more important than any of the things you listed, IF you're on the loosing end of SO that is. if you're pulled out as a community every 2 years and publicly bashed, if you're labeled a threat to society and if you're set up as a legitimate target for physical bashing on a regular basis.

    sorry to have to expand your myopic vision but when the GOP viciously promotes gay bashing, denies basic civil rights to the gay community, tears our children away, deprives us of decent last rights, of visiting our partners on their deathbeds, well, THAT is a much more serious issue than raising the natl debt.

    where did the invasion of privacy begin? with the gay community, with sodomy laws, with witch hunts against gays.

    this is not deflecting the discussion, this IS the heart of the discussion. I sure hope your brother has a better understanding of civil rights than you seem to have.

    by swissffun on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:13:17 PM PDT

•  The best thing imaginable

  would be another Republican, this time hitting on an underaged page of the opposite sex, AND the leadership knowing about it. Then it turns entirely from being a gay issue to a sex and cover-up issue.

  by dhonig on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:02:54 PM PDT

•  Closeted Gay NC Congressman defends Hastert

  There is lots of talk that Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is a closeted gay who is publicly anti gay.

  He's the guy who argued to Wolf Blitzer that the Dems engineered the revelations about Foley.

  http://www.democrats.com/...

  by NC Voter on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:02:55 PM PDT

  •  Please, Lord, let me be correct on this one

    As I have suspected McHenry since the day he visited our volunteer fire dept. back in the summer. He's got the look, and he is being groomed to take Liddy Dole's Senate seat. He is an idiot who has never done an honest day's work in his life. If he's gay, with all the anti-gay rhetoric he has spewed, and his voting record, he deserves the hell he's in for if he is outed. Maybe the Rethugs can find someone who has at least some modicum of honesty about them to run in this redder than red district.

    by stratocasterman on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 01:17:22 PM PDT

•  defanging the GOP power to use Gay bashing GOTV

  The GOP has used gay bashing for GOTV purposes for
  a long long time.

  BY outing the anti gay closeted homosexual congressmen, the GOP loses the ability to do this.

  Also, imagine how easy it is to blackmail someone who is afraid of their true self being revealed?

  Vote for war on Iraq?
  Vote for torture?

  I think the end result of this will be embarrassment for GOP, less gay bashing, and more gay rights.

  by NC Voter on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:06:12 PM PDT

  •  Hope you are right n/t

    by superba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

  •  the security issue is just it

    this was the crux of gay bashing for decades, still the basis for keeping gays out of the military. well, this scandal seems to have the potential to be a watershed moment in american civil rights by revealing the true genesis of the security risk issue. yes, homosexuality is a security risk, but ONLY when it can be brandished against someone afraid that their homosexuality will be revealed - that only is possible with closet cases, and mostly today only with closeted gays pandering to homophobes for their job - ie. gay republicans.

    this needs to end so that the gay rights movement can move forward.

    by swissffun on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:18:27 PM PDT

•  Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

  eom

  by Friar on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:20:02 PM PDT

  •  How did you know??

    And how do you think it's going to affect the GOP in Idaho and elsewhere?

    I feel bad for his family, and sad that he's been betraying his own nature, for whatever reasons, if this is true.  But I've got to say, I'm glad that it is coming out, and glad for the citizens of this country.

    by superba on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 05:11:35 PM PDT

•  Dave Dreier - CA?

  I know Kolbe is the openly gay Republican in Congress, but Dave Dreier's sexual orientation is one of the worst kept secrets around. It wouldn't be big news if he was outed.

  by dwcal on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:34:10 PM PDT

•  Fordham

  was not in the closet, from what I understand.

  And this whole conversation is stupid.

  by ColoDem on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 12:40:19 PM PDT