Kolbe, Two Pages and the Canyon

Espressopundit has posted a new revelation on the Kolbe-Congressional-page fiasco.

Read it here.

The MSN story can be read here.


  1. Randall Holdridge says


    I think you may having a decent talking-point on Kolbe’s handling of the 2000 e-mail situation, though apparently he did direct his staff at that time to report the matter to the Clerk of the House, who is the “principal” of the student page program.

    But this Grand Canyon thing is just innuendo, and spinning it this way is much more likely to reflect badly over time on and do real career harm on the lives of the young men than it is on Mr. Kolbe.

    I accept the fact that you’re homophobic for some reason, but you’re working this way too hard and off the real point.

  2. Mike Triggs says

    Good Point Randall – From the report I read there were other people on the rafting trip, Kolbe staffers, Kolbe’s sister and the two FORMER pages. So hardly t he lurid picture of a Congressman and two pages in a pup tent that is being painted by the folks who revolted by the thought of anything to do with anyone homosexual. (Gosh it sure would be hard to be the homosexual brother, sister, uncle, nephew/niece or kid of some of these homo haters)

    And what is the point other than to divert attention from the real story here of what did the Speaker, Majority Leader, RCCC Chairman, Page Board Chair and Chief Clerk know and when did they know it.

  3. If you read my earlier entry on Kolbe, you would see that I stated that he “did the right thing by filing the complaint.” The point of all most posts on this issue is that Kolbe may have bowed out of re-election because he didn’t want to be misassociated with the entire fiasco. In the political world, perception is reality. As an openly gay Republican, Kolbe didn’t want to take the risk of being associated with an “outed” Republican embroiled in a sex scandal.

    By the way, did I mention I have a gay family member? I wouldn’t say that I’m homophobic. Maybe if you meet me someday, you’ll determine that first hand.

  4. Randall Holdridge says


    I’ve reviewed all the posts on the Sonoran Alliance website tagged to the topic “homosexuality”. Of the ten I found, seven are your posts, and to a greater or lesser degree each of them can be characterized as homophobic.

    Above on this thread I said that I accepted the fact that for some reason you are homophobic; I’m also willing to believe that you believe your assertion to the contrary, and also that this assertion is supported by the fact you “have a gay family member”, whatever that is means.

    If you’re serious about thinking you’re really not homophobic, might I suggest that you too review the posts on the subject by you and others on this site for tone and content, and consider why one might doubt.

  5. Then we are at a stalemate on the basis that we hold differing definitions of “homophobia.”

  6. Mike Triggs says

    Shane – Would you be willing to share the seven posts on “homosexuality” with your gay family member? And if you did, what would his/her response be to those posts? Would they concur with your thoughts or the positions you have taken? Or would they agree that their relative (YOU) suffers from homophobia?

  7. Mike,

    Absolutely! For all I know, they are reading it.

    My problem is with the values and therefore issues that the radical homosexual community has pushed off on the rest of America while claiming it is normal. The most damaged individuals in our country are the children who are growing up confused on the issue of sexuality.

    I also do not believe that homosexuality is genetically locked into an individual. I assert it is behaviorally-based. Why then would we have homosexuals leave the homosexual lifestyle through programs like Exodus International or Homosexuals Anonymous?

    In actuality, I see the term homophobia thrown out as a means to discredit my views. In fact, here is what Wikipedia states in its definition:

    “Its usage is pejorative, and when the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a loaded term intended to abuse and discredit or silence opposition to moral issues connected with homosexuality (see LGBT social movements). Critics of the term have often alleged that it creates a climate of intimidation by demonizing one side of the debate.”

    So I have no problem opposing the homosexual values-issue agenda.

  8. Randall Holdridge says

    Mike Trigg,

    You stated the central question so much more straight-forwardly than I managed to do. I was trying to be tactful, and ended being obscure. You succeeded in being both clear and tactful.

    Good writing and clear thought are their own reward, but cheers anyway.

  9. Randall Holdridge says

    Shucks Shane,

    How could I ever have possibly mistaken you as a homophobe? You’re absolutely overflowing with brotherly love.

  10. Just as long as its Philos and not Eros 🙂

  11. Randall Holdridge says

    I shot an Eros into the air,
    It fell to earth I knew not where;
    But I fired not in vain,
    The arrow lodged itself in Shane.

  12. Randall,

    Don’t make me like you!


  13. Randall Holdridge says

    Well why not?

Leave a Reply