Homocon

The Spokesman-Review newspaper published an article on Thursday detailing accusations that Spokane Mayor Jim West had molested two boys decades ago, and had more recently used his position as Mayor of Spokane to make himself a more appealing and attractive score on a gay Web site (damn, why didn't I think of that?). But the first sentence of The Spokesman-Review story recklessly and irresponsibly states: "For a quarter-century, the man who is now Spokane's mayor has used positions of public trust — as a sheriff's deputy, Boy Scout leader and powerful politician — to develop sexual relationships with boys and young men," without simultaneously explaining that these are unsubstantiated allegations from uncredible sources who have a financial motivation for lying about a public official.

I find this deplorable, though I'm not at all surprised. I mean, "reporting" like this is exactly why I've cancelled all my newspaper subscriptions.

Yes, I'm used to "gay" being a bombshell, especially in politics, and most especially when the politician has dared to hold political and social views that deviate from the "I was born gay and therefore need a host of special laws to require employers to cover me for insurance, to hire me for whatever job I feel I deserve, and to protect my fragile sense of self-esteem from the cruel bigots who taunt and mock me" meme. But flushing a man's life and career down the toilet by reporting unfounded stories and repeating gay chat-room conversations? That they'd been researching for three years? And in those three years they've only found two men to say anything actually bad about Jim West, both of them convicted felons with lawsuits against the county?

The charge that West used his position as Mayor to offer an internship to an online chat partner is not the scandal here (not good judgement, but hardly surprising news in a post-Clinton "meet me in the Oval Office" world), and the newspaper articles detailing the story say that the sting operator posed as 18, which is, also, not a scandal. So the focus of the purported scandal is on the "allegations" of child molestation, and then, more tellingly, on Jim West's supposedly anti-gay agenda in the state legislature.

So let's examine just how "anti-gay" Mayor Jim West actually is.

In the transcripts of the May 4th interview with West conducted by the Spokesman-Review, Karen Dorn Steele asked:
Question: "What about on gay rights issues? You pretty much consistently oppose any expansion of legislation that extends civil rights protections to gays."
Answer: ". . . I go back to basic principal. You can't assault anybody. We shouldn't be carving out special classes of people . . . You shouldn't discriminate against anybody. Every time you carve out a class, you're implying that anybody who is not specifically game it's fair game on . I just think that the assault laws are out there, the penalties for that is out there, and just leave it at that."

For this rational response regarding the enforcement of existing laws for everyone, Jim West has been tarred as "anti-gay". Only in a loony-leftist's mind . . .

And moving on to the online gay chat partner/paid newspaper consultant "Moto-Brock," who posed as a young gay man interested in politics so that the Spokesman-Review could reel in their big catch:
Q: "So you've chatted with Moto-Brock? And in fact offered him a job."
A: "No, but I have lots of interns, internships, I mentor people."
. . .
Q: "Jim, why don't you come clean with this and tell us what's happened here? You've offered this young man the trappings of your office …."
A: "Bill, I haven't offered this young man, or whoever this supposedly young man is the trappings of my office."
. . .
Q: "In this book are two sessions of online sex. You're not going to talk about it? Why don't you just come clean and tell me that it happened and that is part of who you are?"
A: "Because that's my personal life and the kid was 18."

And then we get to the real story, the real reason behind this article at the Spokesman-Review, and I'll give one guess as to what that motivation might be:
Q: "I'm just trying to understand the issue here again. If you were Jim West, truck driver, and you were on AOL…, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the mayor of our city and you were offering lures to a teenage boy. How is that going to rest with your conservative, republican constituents . . . how does that square with your persona as a legislature who is almost homophobic who opposed …"
A: "I'm not (homophobic), that's bullshit."

And there it is. The Homophobic-Closeted-Republican stereotyping and bigotry of the left. The "allegations" of molestation are just window dressing, something to hang this underhanded attack upon. The police have stated through a spokesman that they're not at all interested in pursuing the molestation "allegations" because of their unfounded, uncorroborated nature, and also the fact that the accusers are repeat felons with an ongoing financial suit against the county and without a shred of credibility. There's no "scandal" involving chatting online with an 18 year old (or, as the reporter for the Spokesman-Review likes to keep saying, "teenager") in the privacy of your own home, and as the offers of perks were merely offers instead of actual done-deals, well, there's no "scandal" there, either.

So what we have is a three-year investigation into Jim West's private life in order to expose him as a bigoted and hyprocritical gay Republican.
Q: ". . . there's been the whole series of gay rights bills that Cal Anderson and Rep. Ed Murray tried to expand our anti-discrimination to cover gay people. If you are gay or bisexual why would you pose that?"
A: "I don't think you should discriminate against anybody."
(And here comes the big $20,000 question, the mantra of the gay-left):
Q: "By supporting that bill, you are discriminating, aren't you?"
A: "No you're not . . . As I stated way early, nobody should be discriminated against for any purpose, assaults, it's illegal to assault a bus driver, it's illegal to assault this person or that person, creating special classes of people you shouldn't assault, I think is flat wrong . . . Why is that hypocritical if I don't believe in some of these issues that the gay political community is pressing?"

The interview, the article, the allegations, the headlines -- Steven Smith, the editor for the Spokesman-Review has come out and stated that their report on Jim West was not about his being gay, but when you read through the transcripts of their May 4th interview with West, almost the entire last half of it is devoted to questioning him about his sex life, his attitudes regarding his sex life, how could he have the sex life that he has and still vote the way he does regarding the sex lives of other people who have gay sex lives, what he might think about what people might say about his gay sex life, what he might think about speculations regarding his gay sex life, his online gay sex life, his offline gay sex life, his sex sex sex life, his gay gay gay sex sex sex gay sex sex gay . . . *snore*

And this was a three year investigation, culminating in a blow-by-blow (no pun intended) of chat sessions on a gay website?

I think a much more useful three-year investigation might involve digging up the sex lives and political leanings of the staff for the Spokesman-Review. I have a hunch that we'd find a number of gay and liberal reporters and/or editors who just plain don't like Jim West and/or Conservative politicians in general, who have liberal political axes to grind and leftist social agendas to push, and who think nothing of instigating a vicious and unfounded smear campaign against a popular and successful elected official, utilizing uncredible child-molestation allegations and "dinner date with your blue Lexus" innuendos in an attempt to destroy an elected official's personal life and public career because they've convinced themselves that he's their enemy and the ends justify the means.

But hey -- I'm just alleging.

OTHER OPINIONS:
A Clear Voice
WizBang
Jeff Blogworthy
Say Anything