Democracy for Vancouver

10 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. What a joke. It sounds like Dick went looking for some dick. Isn’t it a crime to proposition someone for sex? If so, then will/if any, charges be filled against this Republican??

   [Reply]

   1. Above comment written by Allen on October 31st, 2007 at 8:16 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

2. This is a tragedy for Richard and Debbie Curtis. My wife and I got to know them during the last campaign season and really wish the best for them.

   [Reply]

   2. Above comment written by Pat Campbell on October 31st, 2007 at 8:26 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

3. Sounds like he may have sidestepped the solicitation issue.

   Hope that he is under a suicide watch and his family is getting some help from professionals.

   I just can’t imagine trying to cope with this.

   [Reply]

   3. Above comment written by bushtool on October 31st, 2007 at 8:30 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

4. This is getting downright creepy. I met Rep. Curtis, and in spite of having an R next to his name, he was a very likable guy. I am so sick of the culture of annihilation. While I agree turnabout may be fairplay, I think it is just too bad that Curtis has to deny who he is, join a party whose stock and trade is fomenting “gay terror”, play his little game, and then in his self-loathing subject himself to the type of degrading behavior exhibited in this episode.

   Very sad.

   [Reply]

   4. Above comment written by arturo on October 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

5. An anecdote I remember about Curtis is that he was willing to at least meet with folks regarding abstinence only education and to actually look at the issue from a public health standpoint. So no, he was not your run-of-the-mill hardcore Republican.

   But as Goldy says:

   People like Curtis are forced to live in the closet because of people like Curtis.

   Meaning that his stance of voting against anti-discrimination laws was certainly hypocritical at best.

   [Reply]

   5. Above comment written by Aneurin on October 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

6. While I feel sorry for his wife and children, I have nothing but contempt for this person. The way it sounds he is gay. No big deal, but why put his wife and children thru this? He ran for public office, to represent and vote on different laws that effect all of us, and is living a hidden life.

   How many other politicians, and according to past news, all Republicans, are doing this? The Democratic Party doesn’t really hide if they are gay or not, why does the Republicans do this?

   I could care less if a person is gay or not, but if they can’t be honest to the people they are suppose to represent, plus having a family to hide their true life, don’t they have enough brains not to run for public office? And why get married in the first place to put his wife and children in the position they are now in.

   We all know kids can be cruel, can you even think of what his children will be going thru when they are in school? All kinds of off color statements, jokes, etc.

   [Reply]

   6. Above comment written by Allen on October 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

7. I did think the KATU reporter mentioning that he had interviewed Curtis’ daughter had crossed a line. Is Curtis the subject of the story? Indeed. But there’s just some common decency that should be the order of the day.

   Oh right, we’re talking about news media here.

   [Reply]

   7. Above comment written by Aneurin on October 31st, 2007 at 7:49 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

8. There is a lot about this sick, sorry saga for everyone to be angry about. It’s a terrible thing to witness someone self-destruct in public, but to watch a man flush a successful career down the toilet like this, along with the unimaginable damage that has Curtis has inflicted on his family is more than merely difficult.

   At the same time, the media wasted no time in attacking Curtis as slaciously as they possibly could. The only thing that the columbian was missing on this story was an artist’s sketch of what Curtis’ encounter might have looked like that night. In addition, Lou Brancaccio wasted no time at all in picking up the phone, and personally injecting himself into a rapidly deteriorating situation in order to get the most tittiliating details possible in front of the public. Lou got an early statement from Curtis on record for the columbian to contradict, as well as demonstrate that Lou actually does something besides take complaints about the TV Weekly…

   I’m glad Curtis didn’t drag this out any longer than he did before he resigned, (no pun intended…) but it is hypocritical in the extreme for the columbian to refer to Curtis as “embattled” and “disgraced”, when it was the columbian, Lou Brancaccio, and their peers in the media who fired all of the shots on this, and not the voters in Curtis’ district.

   I am not offering excuses for Richard Curtis, nor am I defending his repulsive and hypocritical behavior in any way. I am saying that the media smelled blood in the water, sensed a Washington “Wide Stance” moment of our own, and launched a 48-hour long feeding frenzy that culminated in Curtis’ resignation. The few statements I have seen from people who knew Curtis and voted for him were nowhere near as rabid as the columbian and their peers in the media have been.

   [Reply]

   8. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 1st, 2007 at 5:33 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

9. I don’t understand how someone like this can be a republican, I just don’t. Democrats couldn’t care less if you are gay, whereas the GOP will abandon you the second they find out you are. This guy, and Larry Craig, and the rest of them are the ones who have made it an “embarrassment” to be gay. This is called poetic justice.

   [Reply]

   9. Above comment written by Bob on November 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

10. These people, the Curtises, Craigs, Foleys, etc, etc, etc, can’t be part of the Democratic Party precisely because people who are comfortable with their sexuality are what make up the Democratic party. Over the years, the Republican Party has pushed out anyone who is not straight and in so doing has become the way to “prove” that you are not a sexual “deviant”. Unfortunately, the ones who have to prove that, are the ones most uncomfortable about their sexuality and have to practice it in secret. Eventually you get a party full of people who are deceiving everyone, including themselves, and it is just a matter of time before, one by one, their dirty little secrets get out.

    [Reply]

    10. Above comment written by TPain on November 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).