Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Maybe it is my own perspective and my own wierd sense or irony but I find it interesting that we have two mayors named West on opposite ends of the country that are in the news right now for "gay" issues. Both are likely, as a result of those gay issues, to see the end of their careers. Yet one faces jail time for trying to advance in good faith the rights of human beings while the other, after a history of destroying other people, whines on the today show that he's being destroyed. Justice?

   Posted by: Robert | May 31, 2005 7:01:01 PM

   
   

2. Self-hatred is the best. I can so imagine him in a leather onesie, whipping himself with a scrubbrush, while denying himself his right to marry the man he loves.

   Sounds like fun, huh?

   Posted by: Kiks | May 31, 2005 7:02:58 PM

   
   

3. While I may not admire West personally, I have to agree with him in that he represents his constituants first and foremost. If indeed he is voting as per the majority's wishes on certain gay/lesbian issues, how/why should he be held accountable as a hypocrite? I don't get it. The "colour of the house" analogy he uses is an apt one. His responsibility as an elected official is to be the voice of those living in Spokane, not to be an activist.

   You may not like it, but change/responsibility begins at the bottom with West's constituants, not the man himself.

   Posted by: Ryan | Jun 1, 2005 1:20:37 AM

   
   

4. This guy is the worst kind of human being. He 's a selfish, self-hating, hypocrite. Just love it when yet another conservative or religous Nazi is caught with their pants down around the ankles. This one just doesn't seem to have a mirror handy to see how stupid and sad he really is.... Hopefully the people of Spokane will see what a joke they elected and get rid of the wacko.

   Posted by: Vincent | Jun 1, 2005 1:37:10 AM

   
   

5. putting the focus back on the fact that he is still the mayor. when watching the interview i sure did not feel that he was genuine when he stated that there was a "lot of work to do" (in regards to his mayoral duties)
   His demure was not ring of being very genuine.
   Its as if he knows his time as mayor is coming to an end

   Posted by: kuros | Jun 1, 2005 6:25:15 AM

   
   

6. West did not represent his constituents, he only represented himself. He was so afraid of being "outed" that he took a hard line against everything gay. He wanted to show the world, Washington's world anyway, that he was a "man" and not a homosexual. Washington is one of the most liberal states in the U.S., and for West to attempt to state that he represents the people is just stupid. He also sponsored a bill that would have made it illegal for teens to have any type of sexual encounter...even touching would have landed them in jail. He was so afraid of being found out that he went to the extreme of trying to cover his own life up.

   West has used public office to hide and to whip up fear in those around him. He continues to abuse his office by going on national television to discuss his personal problems, all the while sending a message that Spokane still needs him...yeah, like a hole in the head.

   Posted by: Wayne | Jun 1, 2005 8:25:39 AM

   
   

7. Are you sure about that Wayne? That he ONLY represented himself? Although Washington is a slightly liberal state (otherwise they would have passed the gay rights bill with ease) I highly doubt that the only person he was representing was himself.
   I'm confident there are constituients in Spokane who agreed with what West did/supported. Of course now, they're disguested by him, as they see him as one of those "gays" whom they've been trying to restrict.
   But just because you classify him as a self-hating homo doesn't mean that he was representing only himself.
   And the fact that he was not representing only himself is what is truly sad: that there are constituents out there who think what he's done/supported is a good thing.

   Posted by: Schroeder | Jun 1, 2005 9:38:02 AM

   
   

8. from an article in the spokane spokesman-review:
   "As Spokane's incoming mayor in November 2003, West said he opposed extending City Hall benefits to domestic partners, citing the cost. In April 2005, the City Council approved domestic partner benefits in a 5-2 vote, enough to withstand a mayoral veto."

   in my opinion, it's the city council that's representing their constituents, not the mayor.
   

   Posted by: wtf!?! | Jun 1, 2005 11:45:19 AM

   
   

9. Ryan.

   I think you are missing the point. People are elected by a population to uphold a view they share with conviction. But the elected also need a moral compass. This is one of the reasons Bush won last year. He protrayed himself as a man of principal, not a flip-flopper poll watcher.

   West says that gays like blacks, like hispanics, can be conservative. So in this comparison, does he mean that if his constituency were against black rights, he would vote against them? Has he no moral fiber to stand up and do what he thinks is right? Are you saying that this is not an important quality we should require of our leaders? Is this where the activist judges come in?

   I think the the house paint color has one fatal flaw. That is that the painter is working for the one person who hired him. An elected official is working for all people whether they hired/voted for him or not.

   Posted by: Richard | Jun 1, 2005 1:47:14 PM

   
   

10. Good points all around, and I can certainly understand and appreciate everyone's viewpoint.

    Did West vote on the measures he did solely to conceal his own sexual identity? Was he supporting the majority of his constituant's wishes? Is he, as he claims, a "conservative" and thus voted accordingly? Whatever the case, it is true he did little to advance GLBT rights in Spokane and Washington State. But I still find it difficult to lay blame, just as I find it counterproductive and malicious to brand him "hypocrite", "religious Nazi" and so on.

    The people of Spokane elected a mayor; does that require him to be an activist? Perhaps he feels he WAS using his "moral compass", and agree with his choices or not, how can we fault him for doing that much when so many in public office obviously do not?

    I think the real issue at the heart of this matter is the inherent contradiction of the "conservative" gay man. Has West become the whipping boy for a larger issue - the Gay Conservative - that a lot of people seem not to want to address? If so, the debate should extend far beyond James West.
    

    Posted by: Ryan | Jun 1, 2005 2:18:57 PM

    
    

11. Why would you represent constituents who want discriminate against you? Just so you can say you're an elected official? No, West used, and has continued to use, his position of power to seek personal gain, apparently both monetary and sexual. That's the problem here...an elected official has to have his own views or he couldn't get elected! I could stand on a street corner, or buy commercial air time, and tell everyone "I have no views of my own...I'll be your puppet...you tell me how to vote and I'll do it." That guy would never get elected. West had to stand on his own views in order to get elected. Then, once in office, he kept his secret while using that same office to entice men into bed. That's for personal gain, and the argument that he was representing his constituents no longer holds any water with me. If the Spokane newspaper hadn't run the original story then West would still be hiding behind his office and attempting to push through hate filled legislation.

    Outside of the gay issues, I'm still completely thrown by his proposal to make teen sex illegal!! Especially when he's courting teens (the original reporter claimed to be 17) at Gay.com...not a lot amazes me anymore but this sure did.

    Posted by: Wayne | Jun 1, 2005 3:03:41 PM

    
    

12. West should be held responsible for any unethical abuses of his office for personal gain (especially if it involved minors) - this I agree with.

    But what's the difference between West and the Log Cabin Republicans who failed to mount any significant opposition to Bush in the last election and ultimately "towed" the party line? Until some meaningful debate occurs about the political/personal responsibilities of gays and lesbians in public office (including so-called "conservative gays"), West is just an easy target, chosen more for the salacious nature of his story than out of any desire to discuss broader issues.
    

    Posted by: Ryan | Jun 1, 2005 4:06:13 PM

    
    

13. Actually, I retract some of the Log Cabin Republican comparison in the previous comment (before someone jumps on me for it). It wasn't a fair statement - especially if you read their mission statement at their site. I had meant to refer to their eventual complicity in the Protection of Marriage amendment, and how they towed the GOP party line in that regard despite their initial protests.

    Conservative Republican gays in public office. Discuss.

    Posted by: Ryan | Jun 1, 2005 4:13:14 PM

    
    

14. You can be conservative and be gay that makes sense from a economics, budget priorities, military spending and other areas.

    You can be gay and believe in anything you want. Having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is not in and of itself a political statement though it can be if the participants choose to make it.

    I do find it difficult to understand someone who is gay favoring laws that discriminate against themselves and I am not sure that is what a conservative is anyway.

    Posted by: Donald | Jun 1, 2005 4:41:15 PM

    
    

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: