Self-loathing hypocrite Republican in Minnesota
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:22:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Self-loathing hypocrite Republican in Minnesota
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Self-loathing hypocrite Republican in Minnesota  (Read 3734 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2009, 03:26:51 PM »

I'm not sure why this guy is required to feel a certain way just because he's gay.

He does feel "that certain way" but chose to vote against his beliefs.

I didn't call him a hypocrite or self-loathing, FWIW, but it's not correct to state that he's somehow being forced to vote against his conscience on gay marriage or something. He didn't say he was opposed to gay marriage; he gave a somewhat lame excuse for why he voted no and we've been fleshing out the real reasons, which are related to his position in a conservative district at a time when this bill won't pass anyway.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2009, 03:33:05 PM »

I'm not sure why this guy is required to feel a certain way just because he's gay.

He does feel "that certain way" but chose to vote against his beliefs.

Do you know that for certain?

Yeah, you guys are "fleshing" out the reasons. A few guys on an Internet message board are really picking his brain in a fair way.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2009, 03:58:26 PM »


What would be the cost in him saying "I oppose same-sex marriage," if he truly feels that way? It's how his district feels. He'd get some crap from gay activists, but I don't think they're big in Brainerd. I doubt he's reading this thread. Instead, he dodged the issue. I can sort of respect that, which is why I didn't call him a self-loathing hypocrite.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As people with experience of human interactions, we do have a sense of how people's brains work. There are some patterns of behavior that make sense, and some that do not. That's the basis of all we talk about here, if you think about it.

It is very, very hard to imagine an out gay man in politics opposing gay civil marriage on a personal level. The arguments against do resolve, in the end, to a decision that gays must have fewer rights and jump through hoops because of the importance of intangible tradition, and that our relationships will never be full ones. I suppose it's possible for someone to be gay, out, and oppose gay marriage, but it's like that legislator in Kansas who opposed women's suffrage even though she was in government; really extraordinary. It is possible for someone to oppose same-sex marriage on tactical grounds, which is something different.

Or maybe he's single and bitter and thinks same-sex relationships are for other people, so he wouldn't mind screwing them over. I don't get that vibe from his statements, though.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2009, 04:05:31 PM »

Off topic, about a year ago, one of the Republican closet cases in the Washington state legislature got outed -- Rep.  Richard Curtis.  He was fond of male prostitutes and was apparently quite kinky.  The details in the policy report are quite spicy.  lol.  Given his absolutely horrible record on gay rights, I had no sympathy for him. 

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/richard_curtis_more_shocking_details


We also have 6 openly gay members in the state legislature -- all Democrats.


HAHAHAH this Rep. Curtis is quite the character. I really recommend the article to everyone.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2009, 04:05:58 PM »

He'd get some crap from gay activists, but I don't think they're big in Brainerd. I doubt he's reading this thread.

Maybe he is worried about stuff like this. Sure, he's probably not reading this thread but you don't think he's getting a bunch of nasty phone calls from gays across Minnesota? Now imagine how much worse it would be if he flat out said he opposes gay marriage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And my problem is that some here aren't even willing to entertain that. It's "He's self loathing" and "He's going to struggle to get laid!"

Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2009, 05:23:50 PM »

He's obviously trying to separate himself from gay issues, because of his constituency and his career.  This sort of thing is not unknown in politics.  For example, Artur Davis, who is about to run for governor in Alabama, condemned the Congressional Black Caucus's decision to embrace Roland Burris.  Even Hillary Clinton, in a constituency that was majority-female (Democratic Primary) spent a long portion of her campaign trying to act as stereotypically unfeminine as possible. 

I'm sure he believes in gay marriage, to some extent, but his political future is more important to him.  It's ironic that he stated that him voting for gay marriage would be too "distracting" from current economic issues, yet his vote against gay marriage is generating way more buzz.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2009, 09:18:22 PM »
« Edited: February 21, 2009, 09:20:58 PM by Ogre Mage »

We also have 6 openly gay members in the state legislature -- all Democrats.

Having gay representatives is becoming a non-event in Massachusetts, too. The Senate Minority Leader is gay, but not openly so. It's a Mark Foley situation where he isn't leading a double life BUT nobody talks about or acknowledges it. He votes for gay rights when it comes up. Easy to do when you're 1/5 of the entire caucus.

It's nice to know that the closet cases in MA are relatively gay-friendly.  In WA they are raging homophobes and their extreme hypocrisy drives me up a wall, not to mention how bad they make gay men look.  Spokane's former mayor, Jim West, was another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._West_(politician)

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/story.asp?ID=050505_west_politics


I wouldn't characterize Koering as a West or Curtis type.  However, he is a sellout as far as gays & lesbians are concerned and should be regarded as such.  If he ever finds a long-term partner I hope someone in MN points out his hypocrisy.


Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2009, 09:51:47 PM »

Again, I think the true sellouts are "family values" people like Larry Craig.  I don't think every homosexual, especially those with conservative districts, have to become all-out gay-rights advocates.  This guy is clearly a bit off, but he's afraid of himself stereotyped as "the gay guy" in terms of his politics.  I think Artur Davis rejecting the CBC on Burris, as I said above, is a somewhat parallel example although one where whites like us can easily agree with.  Michael Blackwell defended Chip Saltsman's "Magic Negro" CD's and Obama forgave every single racial slight during the early primaries (Biden's "clean" gaffe) so that they would not be typecast as "the black candidates."  This is clearly a dilemma for many minorities.

I don't know, really.  I feel the need to play the devil's advocate here.  There were prominent gay activists here in California who opposed those initial court actions to achieve gay marriage!  Not because they themselves didn't support gay marriage, but they felt California wasn't ready and an abrupt court decision could create a backlash that would ultimately set California back.  Haha, and I'm not just saying that after Prop 8.  For those of you who have seen Milk, you can see those big gay fundraisers/activists who opposed Harvey's candidacy because they didn't think that was the best way to promote gay rights.  I'm not saying that is what this Minnesotan legislator is doing, and he almost CERTAINLY is being electorally selfish at the expense of his own group, but on the other hand, he's probably only passively in homosexual marriage terminology.

/ramble
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2009, 03:45:31 PM »

Larry Craig is akin to West and Curtis.  That's a whole different level of derangement.

The Koering situation does raise an interesting question.  Do gay & lesbian politicians have an obligation to support gay rights?  To the large majority of gay Republicans, the answer is clearly no.  Gay rights are unimportant and should just be thrown under the bus for the sake of personal political advancement.  No one forced Koering to join the Republican Party or run in a conservative-leaning district.  His vote was not about tactical positioning for gay rights.  It was about the tactical advancement of his own career.  Why care about anyone else so long as your own position is secure?

This is why I said he was a sellout.

Also, many African Americans do consider Artur Davis a sellout, although not because of Burris.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2009, 03:52:49 PM »

His vote was not about tactical positioning for gay rights.  It was about the tactical advancement of his own career.  Why care about anyone else so long as your own position is secure?

One could argue that tactical positioning for his own career could be tactical advancement of gay rights in the long run. Koering helped keep an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment off the ballot in Minnesota in a previous legislature. A Republican replacement surely would have banged the drum for it. He has value for gay rights even if he didn't support them on this issue.

I haven't studied this bill's progress in Minnesota, but if it not close to passage this year, there's not much advantage to him in supporting it. I think that if such a bill came closer to passage on the backs of legislators with less conservative districts, he would join the wave to make it happen. But now, voting yes is a quixotic gesture. This is why I cut him some slack and assume the best case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll probably forget about Koering by March anyway.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2009, 02:20:25 AM »

Sen. Koering's office has issued a response to the controversy:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/whats_a_gay_republicans_duty.php


I am surprised the senator's office would put out this arrogant, condescending piece of bull$hit.  He may have more in common with Jim West than I thought.  He needs a laxative.  Or an enema.  Or perhaps a butt plug.  Something to relieve his acute case of anal tension.

Furthermore, if you look at the language of the letter and its dismissive tone, it strongly suggests that he is doing the very thing I accused him of.  One example:

"He is here to represent the interests of his rural Minnesota constituents who voted him into office ... I would not want another politician taking another vote that would serve his or her personal interests more so than the People's, would you?"

Koering is deliberately attempting to curry political favor with the prejudiced base in his district by trampling on gay rights.  This is disgusting.

Still think he's not a sellout?

I probably won't discuss this further, because Koering is a waste of time.  He certainly has done nothing to change my negative view of gay Republicans.  And this is what comes from trusting them.
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2009, 04:50:48 AM »

Sen. Koering's office has issued a response to the controversy:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/whats_a_gay_republicans_duty.php


I am surprised the senator's office would put out this arrogant, condescending piece of bull$hit.  He may have more in common with Jim West than I thought.  He needs a laxative.  Or an enema.  Or perhaps a butt plug.  Something to relieve his acute case of anal tension.

Furthermore, if you look at the language of the letter and its dismissive tone, it strongly suggests that he is doing the very thing I accused him of.  One example:

"He is here to represent the interests of his rural Minnesota constituents who voted him into office ... I would not want another politician taking another vote that would serve his or her personal interests more so than the People's, would you?"

Koering is deliberately attempting to curry political favor with the prejudiced base in his district by trampling on gay rights.  This is disgusting.

Still think he's not a sellout?

I probably won't discuss this further, because Koering is a waste of time.  He certainly has done nothing to change my negative view of gay Republicans.  And this is what comes from trusting them.

I wasn't actually that bothered by Koering's actions until I read this crap.  You're right, it was both arrogant and dismissive.  What a tool.  Saying he's just trying to represent the people's interest over his own.  That's just a lame attempt at having it both ways. 

The proof is in his original statement saying it was a distraction.  I think someone else already pointed out that it takes the same amount of time to vote 'yes' as it does 'no'.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 11 queries.