Spokane Mayor and former Republican powerhouse State Senator Jim West will face a Dec. 6 recall vote prompted by reports he used his office and position to seek sexual relationships with young men. KATU-TV confirms here the recount is on. More than enough signatures were confirmed by county elections workers.
Mac Safari users, click on time stamp to continue.
An AP story from earlier today in The Seattle Times notes the recall vote isn't West's only problem.
In a separate investigation, the City Council is looking at whether West violated city workplace policies, including prohibitions against using city computers to obtain or transmit obscene or pornographic material. West has admitted "poor judgment" but has denied breaking any laws....On Monday, the City Council stepped up its pressure on West by voting to hire an outside lawyer to argue for the release of West's hard-drive computer information.Council members approved a $5,000 increase in a $15,000 contract with a Bellevue law firm that was previously hired to investigate the mayor's workplace conduct. West is fighting release of the computer records, in part because they include "highly offensive" private material, West has said in a sworn affidavit. Investigating attorney Mark Busto has requested release of the information as part of the council-sponsored investigation.
This business with the obscene stuff on his work computer seems a further indication that while West may arguably have been a good mayor, and while he certainly has years of legislative and public policy acumen, he has lost the ability to separate the personal from the professional, and may have suffered from a pornography habit. Which would be revolting. Such a person does not belong in elected office. Forcing the people of Spokane to go to the lengths of the upcoming recall is another strike against West.
As I've said here before, I think West should have already resigned because he put himself in a position to be blackmailed by telling a young man he solicited online to stay quiet about his gay sexual proclivities because he was a public figure. That too shows remarkably poor judgement.
But ultimately, this whole sorry saga is about more than West's obvious personal problems. West's closeted life is in itself a tragedy. Let's step back from the headlines for a minute and think about closeted gay Republicans. Their existence argues for: a) greater tolerance of gay Republicans by Republicans, so that more gay Rs can be "out" AND politically active; or for b) gay Republicans staying closeted or slinking away in shame from the party to which they want to belong.
To send a message of acceptance of gays within the party does not mean the party or individual members necessarily support gay marriage, most obviously don't. Personally, I believe state DOMA laws should have been the last word, but of course they weren't. State constitutional amendments defining marriage as solely between a man and woman are entirely appropriate, if voters so choose, and we're probably headed that way in Washington if our Supreme Court decides to legislate from the bench in the pending consolidated cases here on gay marriage. Further, expressing greater tolerance of gays within the Republican Party does not in any way condone the "sexual diversity" agenda which so many public school districts misguidedly offer. That's for parents to teach, or should be. But the way we fix that is not through hostility to gays.
To the extent that the Jim West story is about gays in Republican politics, it is not really about Jim West at all. According to one estimate, some 23 percent of gay voters supported George W. Bush last November. There are bright, capable, hardworking Republicans already out there who happen to be gay or lesbian. They typically agree with some three-quarters of the party platform, and will never have a home in the Democratic Party. Do we turn our backs to them, or welcome them into the tent? If the Jim West saga causes more Washington Republicans to ponder such matters, he will have done us all a service.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 06, 2005 05:57 PM | Email ThisOh, and on a serious note, isn't it odd that homosexuals in the Democrat party express more outrage about West then Republicans in general? The guy needs to go, I agree, but you think a "brutha" could get some love from folks swinging from the same side of the plate as he is.
Posted by: Reporterward on October 6, 2005 07:48 PMLet's be real here. The problems that plague West are very common among gays. They define their entire lifestyle with their sexuality! When you see yourself primarily as a homosexual or bi-sexual instead of as a *person* - you will inject sex to every aspect of your life.
I've worked with gay men in the banking industry. Three of them at three different banks. With each man, I witnessed abuse of their time - wasted on constant telephone calls - making arrangements for parties and trips and bars,etc... Falling behind in their work and constantly in some emotional turmoil with their partner of the week. Acting worse than a teenage girl in heat! And the constant harassment by them of other male employees by way of innuendo and flirting! The same with gay friends in the airline industry. It's as though they're on the job but their mind is always on their sexual exploits of the day or the upcoming weekend! Always! They don't seem to be able to separate their professional lives from their personal.
I'd like to know what part of the Republican's conservative platform - gays can identify with?
Conservatives are generally into traditional family values, less government and higher moral standards. Where do gay republicans stand on these?
But they need to be willing to tolerate the views of those who consider homosexual conduct a grave sin (as well as being just really, really gross).
As long as everyone is tolerant, we can get along fine. It's when tolerance is a one-way street--or when homosexuals insist on approval, rather than mere tolerance--that problems arise.
I'm from Spokane, and I haven't decided how I'll vote on the recall (though I did sign the petition). West should have resigned, but I'm not willing to vote him out just because he's homosexual, and I haven't decided if the accusations of malfeasance are true or not.
Posted by: ScottM on October 6, 2005 08:17 PMI really, really don't care what the Mayer of Spokane does in his bedroom, but when if it came to work with him, that is a problem.
Posted by: dl on October 6, 2005 09:08 PMThe role of the government is to provide those services to the public which they can not otherwise provide for themselves.
The GOP I know and love should focus on that, how to best serve the public. This means protecting the constitution, providing for a common defense, regulating interstate and international commerce, etc...
This does not include telling people how to live their private lives. Nothing in what should be the GOP platform should prohibit a homosexual from supporting the party.
If I were Jim West religious advisor, I would share with him that I believe he is living in sin, and help him, as a good christian should, to learn to live with his compulsion.
If I were Jim West political advisor, I could honestly care less what he does in his bedroom with whom. (That being said, if he did abuse his office, he needs to go)
We all need to remember, we are all sinners. Struggling with you sprituality is not hypocritical. Not struggling with it is. None of us know what is in Jim West heart. None of us know how he had tried to fight his demons.
Conservative values should cause us to reach out and help Jim West as a friend, neighbor and/or community members. We should not demand the the government get involved to help him. We as good conservatives should.
Posted by: T.J. on October 6, 2005 09:08 PMTJ,
Morality = ethical standards.
It's not just homosexual behavior on the job..but ANY behavior that preoccupies a person who holds an office. There are certain standards of morality that all members of office must uphold. If they can blur the line between their job and sexual favors, gambling, kiddie porn, online strippers, illegal drugs, etc....then they need to go.
There are moral standards and ethics expected and required by both parties in the behavior of our elected officials!
Morality should not be legislated - it should be a job requirement while in office.
Posted by: Deborah on October 6, 2005 10:20 PM"Shannon's son questioned Shannon about the "president" of the city, and what was being done about it.
Shannon would not allow her son to look up to a man she could not respect and pressed forward to make the mayor accountable and teach her son a life lesson that once you begin something you see it through to the end.
Shannon has weathered the emotional, financial and legal storms and prevailed in superior court and the supreme court and will not rest until the voters of Spokane are able to cast their vote now that the true facts are on the table."
I am furious at the tactics that were used in this case. The "facts" that Shannon Sullivan refers to are not on the table. The fact is the Spokesman-Review went after him with both barrels. These stories are all still free on-line, though everything else is for registered paid subscribers only.
No mention of the lawsuit by Attorney Steve Eugster, that the signatures were not collected in a timely manner.
This kind of vicious attack makes me sick to my stomach coming from either side of the aisle.
Let the courts sort this out. If he did break the law, he will be removed from office.
Posted by: cc on October 6, 2005 10:53 PMHeterosexuals STILL place their sexuality in the closet - at work, sports, scouting, around children, etc...because it's appropriate and moral and ethical!
Jim West is just another example of the consequences of *coming out*....No one should have that right when it's not appropriate.
However, I'd have to disagree with her assertion that all or even most gay men are unprofessional in the way they conduct themselves while at work. There probably are a disproportionate number of gay men that act in this manor (and there's no excusing this behavior), but I suspect that far more go under the radar because they work hard, act professionally, and for the most part, don't bring their personal lives into the workplace.
Gay Republicans may not agree 100% with the party platform, but I think 100% agreement by anyone is pretty rare. There's plenty of fiscal, role of government, and non-orientation related morality issues (i.e., abortion) within the platform that are not the exclusive perview of hetrosexuals. Just as you say that gays should not define themselves solely based on their sexuality, the Repubican party can't solely define itself by it's stance on social issues - that's not a political party, that's a church.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on October 6, 2005 11:01 PM1) We can and do legislate morality. That is why rape, murder, robbery, etc., is illegal. We as a society deem it so morally wrong that we outlaw it. But that is neither here nor there. Neither I or most of the folks I know who are appalled by this care about which team he plays for, or want's to legislate it. His homosexual behavior isn't the issue. His private life is just that, private. But...
2) We're aren't talking about his private life. He is accused of requesting sexual favors for government jobs using government computers on government time. If he wants to do this stuff at home, fine. Disgusting, but it's his life. But when he does it on the dollar of the citizens of Spokane, there is a problem. Straight, gay, whatever... he did this on city time in city offices on city equipement, and promised city internships and jobs in return. Assuming that's all true (or else the Spokesman-Review is going to get hit with one helluva lawsuit), for that and that alone he should have resigned . To fight it shows an incredible amount of arrogance, or he is in serious denial.
Posted by: Mike H on October 6, 2005 11:11 PMYou both apparently missed the point in my post where I said "If he abused his office, he needs to go" That is between Jim West and the residence of Spokane. The get to decide that this December.
Deborah quoted me talking about what the GOP platform should be and tried to make it sound as if I was talking about West at the time. I have no idea what you mean by that.
Mike H: And by the way, rape, murder etc... are not illegal because they are "immoral", they are illegal because they violate someone elses "unalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Recommended reading: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights/all other amendments to said constitution.
If you read all of Matt's thread hear, you will notice the majority of it, is not about Jim West, as part of my comments were about gay republicans in general.
A time existed when the GOP supported personal responsiblity and allowing communities to play the role of giving morality. Now the GOP is no better then the Democrats, they just want to control peoples lives a different way. Every day, I grow more and more disenchanted with Republicans.
Democrats control this state because they lead. I don't agree with the direction they lead it, but atleast they lead. Republican keep talking about gays, guns and God. Why don't we spend more time thinking about what government is supposed to do in a free society. Maybe, just maybe, we may actually win a election. Wouldn't that be special.
Posted by: T.J. on October 7, 2005 12:25 AMApparently, Deborah isn't familiar with Girls Gone Wild, Hooters, Maxim magazine, or frat parties. Are the red-blooded American male consumers / participants in these activities "defining" their lives by their heterosexuality? Deb needs a strong dose of double standard medicine. But, of course, even that won't work, because her hatred of homosexuality won't let her be anything besides judgmental and biased.
I've worked with gay men in the banking industry. Three of them at three different banks. With each man, I witnessed abuse of their time - wasted on constant telephone calls - making arrangements for parties and trips and bars,etc...
Yes, Deborah. All gay men are like that, 24x7. Outside the banking industry, too. Didn't you forget to mention the other well-worn stereotypes: all blacks are lazy, all Jews are greedy, and all Latinos are here illegally? I know these things to be true, because I worked with these people. Sickening.
Get a clue - or admit you are just another run of the mill bigot....and stop lying to yourself thinking you're doing this out of Christian compassion.
Was that "being real" enough for you?
Posted by: AmazedByRightWingHate on October 7, 2005 01:01 AMWhat? Democrats don't control this state because they lead, they control this state because over half the state would vote for the socialist party, but since there isn't a viable one, they vote democrat. They also control this state because they are wiling to break election law to make sure that their candidates get elected. The only place Republicans talk constantly about "gays, guns, and God" is in the minds of Democrats and in the media which is controlled by Democrats.
If this is really your opinion, rather than a poor attempt at a troll, then you haven't been paying attention. The Republican party in this state made several attempts to deal with the rising costs of gasoline and its effects on the economy through a temporary roll back of the state gas tax, both proposals not even considered by the Dems. The Republicans attempted to propose a more sensible transportation alternative to the boondoggle filled 9 1/2 gas tax package, no consideration by the Dems. Mandatory state audits? Republican. Eliminate the B&O tax so that people will stay in business in Washington? Republican. Prevent the government from stealing most of your land through CAO? Republican. I would say that you need to do a little more research into the party that you are so "disenchanted" with before you speak up.
Posted by: Calvin A on October 7, 2005 05:25 AMAll the Ds have to do is sit back and watch the feast. They did it in the mid90s.
Jobs for political favors? Come on, people. This is as old as the hills. Would I vote for the guy next time? No way, but a recall? Come on.
Is it just because the guy is guy? What if he weren't and gave a job to some babe? Would your outrage be as great or would you say- we need more Alpha males like women used to say about Clinton?
I am coming to the conclusion that Rs are no differnet from Ds. And that is a scary thought.
Posted by: swatter on October 7, 2005 07:39 AMDeborah...agree with your opinion when it is appropriate to be "out of the closet" regardless of sexual orientation.
Amazedbyrightwinghate...you refer to Girls Gone Wild, Hooters, etc., which are all typically outside of work activities. I fail to see how they prove that Deborah has a double standard, because she defends appropriate on the job sexual behavior for everyone.
Over the past few years, there have been several high profile cases of prosecution for porn in the workplace and other inappropriate sexual conduct on the job. The real double standard would be for Mr. Mayor to get a pass because of his orientation (if the charges are proved to be true).
This computer is city property! Enuff said.
Two good things could result from this case:
1. Mayor West is retired from public office.
2. The editor of The Spokesman-Review (Steven A. Smith) resigns because of his poor handling (and self-aggrandizement) of the West story.
Only the former will happen, but maybe if people stop buying The S-R, the latter would happen, too. I lived in the city of Spokane a few years ago, and The S-R is an extremely liberal newspaper (as are many, if not most). My neighbor still subscribes and gives me her copy of The S-R, and I use it mostly to catch oil spills in my garage, and for my sons' bird and pet rabbit cages. Those are the best uses I can think of for The S-R.
The fact that Jim West has had homosexual encounters is incidental. The fact that he has abused his office is not. Maybe Jim West and Steve Smith can slink out of Spokane in the dead of night together.
Posted by: otto on October 7, 2005 09:39 AMI could care less - means that you care.
I couldn't care less - means that you don't care.
Capish?
Posted by: Bubba on October 7, 2005 09:53 AMWe are not hearing everything about this case.
Posted by: cc on October 7, 2005 10:07 AMthey are illegal because they violate someone elses "unalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were stated in the Declaration of Independance because the King of England were violating many of them, and the Founders felt that was wrong. It's a moral arguement.
To phrase my earlier arguement a different way... we as a society deem violating one's rights in those particular ways to be so morally wrong we've outlawed them. Otherwise, why can't you violate them? Why is it in the pursuit of my liberty and happiness, I can't just kill the little punk down the street with his music too loud?
It is ultimately a moral arguement.
Posted by: Mike H on October 7, 2005 10:08 AMHahahaha-yeeeee-ahhhhhh-hahahahahahahaha! That's a real thigh slapper Matt R. Hahaha-yeeeee-ahhhhhh-hahahahahahahah!
After calming down here.
The answer is no, we do not welcome homosexual perverts like Jim West inside the tent. OK? And we don't need the votes of those who support a pervert like Jim West. OK? There are, in fact, moral value driven issues that separate us from those in the Democrat party. A platform that supports the complete agenda of those who, as you so quaintly put it, "happen to be gay and lesbian" will not assist in bringing majority support to and for the Republican Party. The big tent theory is a bunch of bull and serves only to divide and separate and make party distinctions meaningless.
Thanks again for the laughs.
Posted by: bulldozer on October 7, 2005 10:35 AMWhat if someone is homosexual and doesn't support the "gay agenda"? West was in the state senate for years and never supported the "complete aganda" that you mentioned. I have heard several conservatives who are also homosexuals, and they really couldn't care less about pushing gay marriage or anything like that. Do we boot them out as well?
Posted by: Mike H on October 7, 2005 10:45 AMSo it appears that Spokane voters are taking the advice of the court, Judge Bridges, and attempting to remedy the situation themselves. The citizens of Spokane elected this Mayor, as long as they work within the law, they are entitled to request whatever vote they choose within their fair city.
Posted by: dl on October 7, 2005 11:36 AMI said nothing of the sort. Just because one is gay does not mean they automatically endorse gay marriage, or many of the other items of the "gay agenda". That is all I am saying. To lump all gays together as one like minded group is no different than lumping all Latinos, women, gun owners, Republicans, or any other section of society as one like minded group... they aren't, so to do so is a really dumb thing to do.
And exactly how is someone being gay and not endorsing gay marriage hypocritical?
Posted by: Mike H on October 7, 2005 01:13 PMYes, he ought to be ousted because of not only inappropriate activity while at work, but because it went across the line in terms of offering jobs while at the same time soliciting sex (dates). Any other city or corporate worker would likely be fired for this type of activity.
Notwithstanding a possible agenda on the part of the newspaper, West went way over the line and now bears the burden for this transgressions. Many, many politicians and those in the private sector have lost jobs because of scandal and West ought to do the right thing and resign. But, it appears that his ego won't allow him to do the right thing.
Don't ask me, ask the Log Cabin Republicans about their "agenda."
>>And exactly how is someone being gay and not endorsing gay marriage hypocritical?
Obviously you know that the homosexual agenda is much broader than simply gay marriage. Check it out:
http://equalrightswashington.org/
You also must know that Democrats and homosexuals are primarily the ones who have publicly called West, and those like him, hypocritical. In this instance I agree with them.
I think I remember reading that in The Federalist Papers...(/sarc)
Which is a problem if they do it at work, right? Which was Deborah's point.
The obvious difference, of course, is that Rs criticize their own.
Troll alert.
We also criticize DemocRATs when they do stupid and illegal things.
>>troll alert
Definition: used when there is no intelligent response or opposing argument...
Posted by: bulldozer on October 7, 2005 02:09 PMI have found that there is a widespread inability to distinguish between personal beliefs as they correspond to the way that one lives their own life and personal beliefs as they correspond to public life (political, business, etc.).
The recent shift in comments here really shows what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Kyle on October 7, 2005 02:32 PMI have worked with many gay people in multiple environments, including banking, and haven't encountered any of the people you have. I found many hardworking talented people that I would be grateful to employ in my own business. And I have not observed that heterosexuals keep their sexuality at home - its all over TV and the rest of mass media, and its at the office (every office I've worked in anyway). I even encouter it at my church.
In my family, our gay couples are among the most conservative and reliable family members. I think that if the GOP would wake up and end its pro-discrimination policies in party and policy affairs, the party would be more capable of actually possibly coming to power in our state. And our state would be better for it.
A good place to start would be for the GOP state senate to support an end to laws that allow discrimination in hiring and housing based on sexual orientation - gay of straight.
I heard a speech by the President of WSU - a conservative Mormon - support more inclusive policies on race, gender and sexual orientation as a key to our economy and growth. Sound to me like a a very republican thing to do.
Posted by: Thor on October 8, 2005 09:36 AMI personally don't feel like convicting this guy because the Spokesman-Review says he allegedly offered jobs for favors and surfed for porn at work. He has been a good mayor. His personal proclivities are no concern of mine.
dl, you are right, the majority in Spokane have spoken. They want to vote on a recall. I don't deny them that right. I feel it is premature. That's all.
I am a gay Republican. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in the free market. I despise identity politics(from gays, or any other group). I believe in lower taxes, school vouchers, gun rights, and the elimination of large portions of the federal government (after which we need to downsize state and local governments). I don't support a "gay rights" agenda, and I find the idea of having a sexual relationship with a child (of any age) to be repulsive in the extreme. None of these positions will ever allow me to vote for a Democrat.
But apparently anything resembling self-expression on my part is enough to send some of the Republicans here over the edge. I don't discuss my personal life at work, but I am mightily p*ssed off that having a picture of a boyfriend on my desk at work would be too much for some here. Simply strolling down the street holding hands with another man would label me as "in your face" by those same people. Things that are taken for granted by "normal" people don't become "special rights" when gays ask for them as well. I'm not talking about gay marriage here; that's a different thing altogether, and something which I am not entirely in favor of endorsing. I am talking about honestly answering questions about how I spent my weekend, or why I'm not interested in dating your neighbor's daughter (wonderful though she may be), or why I should be evicted or fired for being gay, or any of a multitude of other situations. Outside of the fact that I prefer men, there is little to distinguish me from any of the straight men who work with me. My sexual orientation is not what defines me, but it is a component of my identity. Asking me to deny it is the same as asking straights to refrain from mentioning their spouses or girlfriends under any circumstances, and just as unrealistic. I don't care what people think about my personal life, but I don't like the idea of their likes and dislikes affecting my legal rights in such a fashion.
Never mind for a minute that the allegations against Jim West are not because he is gay, but because of what he did "on the clock" using city resources and his position. Imagine if you will that it was young women who were West's target. If your reaction changes, perhaps you need to reevaluate why you are so upset. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't make a bit of difference; both are wrong, and if West is guilty of what he has been accused, he should be sitting in jail, not worrying about a recall.
I voted for Dino Rossi in November (and Bush too, for that matter), but if people like Bulldozer are the future of the Republican party here in Washington, it's going to be a long time before the GOP is going to be able to put together a majority again. This state leans Democratic as it is (due to the freaks in Seattle); telling various groups that they are not welcome inside the Republican tent is not going to improve the GOP's chances.
Posted by: interested observer on October 9, 2005 06:30 PMI personally don't give a damn about his sexual orientation. I do, however, give a great Disneyland-Big damn about his blackening the eye of the Republican party through his corruption. If we are going to claim moral superiority over the Democrats (which, even after West's exposure, I maintain that we still hold), then we need to run SOBs like West out of the party.
Posted by: ERNurse on October 9, 2005 09:54 PMRe "could care less", perhaps this dictionary entry will help. Play particular attention to definition 1.a.
Posted by: cp on October 9, 2005 11:41 PMI fully embrace people like you who are conservative and 'right minded' (so to speak). You sound like a hard worker and level headed person. I would have no problem with you having a picture of your boyfriend on your desk if I worked with you. But I don't think that a business should be FORCED to hire you if they don't want to because of your orientation. I also don't think they should be forced to hire me because I'm a woman, or a Native American, or forced to hire anyone for whatever reason (race, religion, or orientation). I am completely against affirmative action and like programs. If someone wants to pass up on talent, that's their right...and the government shouldn't force businesses to hire people based on any factor.
And I don't think that holding hands w/ your boyfriend is "in your face" but it still makes me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean I would outlaw it or anything...but PDA in general makes me uncomfortable no matter who it is. I guess I'm just a prude. :-) But it does bother me when I want to go shop in downtown Olympia and they're having a gay pride parade with a lot of skimpy leather outfits and b*ndage floats. No thank you...I'll take my money elsewhere. Talk about "in your face."
Posted by: megs on October 10, 2005 08:41 AMPrecisely. I supported dumping (South Dakota Rep.) Bill Janklow when he was convicted of a DUI which killed a motorcyclist, and I will support dumping Tom Delay if he is convicted of the charges for which he has been indicted. (Delay may be the victim of a political vendetta, which is why I want to see how it plays out before making a decision.)
megs: I consider homosexual acts to be as much a sin as adultery or robbery.
The difference is that there are wronged parties in the two examples you cited (the spouse and children of the adulterer, and the victim of the robbery). A consensual relationship between two men or two women violates the rights of nobody. If may offend the sensibilities of others, but there is no constitutional right to not be offended.
But I don't think that a business should be FORCED to hire you if they don't want to because of your orientation.
I dislike the idea of affirmative action hires. But short of asking me, most employers would not know that I am gay. I am "straight acting" (by personal temperament) and only people who know me well would be able to figure out that I'm a bit different.
What concerns me more is the prospect of being fired because someone realizes that I am gay. If I was qualified enough to be hired in the first place, homosexuality should not be a disqualifier for continued employment. The same holds true for housing—I'm wouldn't be running a brothel in an apartment, but I might have a friend over; that should not result in an eviction notice.
but PDA in general makes me uncomfortable no matter who it is.
I feel the same way. I am not offended by hand-holding or a quick hug or kiss, but I have no desire to watch anyone make out in public. However, many people hold to a double standard which states that a man and woman sucking face in public is okay, but make it a same-sex couple and all bets are off.
As to "gay pride" parades, I'm totally with you. Leather, drag, and other bizarre apparel are offensive, but I also find anti-war marches to be offensive. Again, it's not the sentiments expressed within (with which I may agree or disagree), but the flagrant manner in which they are presented. It's designed to provoke and offend, rather than engage and convince.
Posted by: interested observer on October 10, 2005 11:13 AM