[linskyjack]

Spokane mayor predicts he'll survive scandals

By JOHN K. WILEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SPOKANE, Wash. -- Spokane Mayor James E. West told a national audience Tuesday that he voted against gay-friendly measures because that was what his conservative district wanted, even though he was a closeted homosexual.

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, West called child molestation allegations against him "absolutely wrong" and predicted he would survive investigations into allegations that he misused his office for personal gain.

West, who was in New York on his way to attend a conference Wednesday and Thursday in Tampa, Fla., told host Matt Lauer that residents are urging him to remain in office, even as business organizations and politicians are telling him it's time to go.

"The e-mails that are coming to me are in my favor not to resign. Stand your ground," West said. "They say, `If the allegations are true, you ought to go.' Well, they are not true."

The mayor is the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether he committed criminal acts by trolling gay chat rooms and offering city jobs to men he met there. The city has appointed a commission to determine whether he violated policies against misuse of computers.

West has repeatedly denied allegations, raised in a series of articles beginning May 5 in The Spokesman-Review newspaper, that he sexually molested two teenage boys when he was a sheriff's deputy and Boy Scout leader in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The Spokane City Council scheduled a vote Tuesday night on a resolution asking West to resign. The vote is advisory and West can only be removed from office by recall. A group of residents have begun circulating a recall petition.

West, a former GOP majority leader in the state Senate, said he wasn't being hypocritical when he opposed gay-friendly bills.

"I voted to represent my legislative district in the Legislature. I was not an advocate," West said. "I was not a leader of the charge in any of those cases. Every representative and every senator from my district voted the way I voted."

West, who characterized himself as "bisexual, gay" who had intimate relationships with both men and women after his divorce about nine years ago, said he doubts he would have voted differently had he not been closeted.

"I am a conservative. I am not a closet liberal pretending to be a conservative," West said. "What is wrong with somebody having an alternative sexual orientation being a conservative? Can a ... gay or black be conservative? I think they can."

West said he will be exonerated by the FBI and city investigations.

"I haven't misused my office for personal gain," he said. "... I welcome those investigations because I believe they will clear me."

He told Lauer he expects more allegations to surface as political enemies "pile on."

[iltos]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Spokane mayor predicts he'll survive scandals

what a strange man!!

i tend to think he will survive his scandals, tho i know absolutely nothing about them....but they stink of political muckraking....from one side or the other.....

and i find myself admiring the courage of his convictions and appalled by the lack of integration in his own life.....

but hey, he's a politician, so it all somehow makes sense

[linskyjack]

I just hate people who have such low self respect that they can attack the lifestyle in public and then live it in private.

[angelize56]

What's with him bashing his own kind!

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, West called child molestation allegations against him "absolutely wrong" and predicted he would survive investigations into allegations that he misused his office for personal gain.

Switch a few words around and you have MJ:

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, Jackson called child molestation allegations against him "absolutely wrong" and predicted he would survive investigations into allegations that he misused his celebrity for personal gain.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Switch a few words around and you have MJ:

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, Jackson called child molestation allegations against him "absolutely wrong" and predicted he would survive investigations into allegations that he misused his celebrity for personal gain.

are you suggesting there's a handbook for this sort of thing?

[angelize56]

Could be!

[XL Guru]

Of course there's nothing wrong with being a gay Conservative -- other than it involves being a Conservative.

Seriously tho', if I was in a position where I was "expected" to vote at odds with such clear personal beliefs ... I'd be inclined to stand down.

[Mulderator]

Linsky, I don't get what the problem is you have with this guy other than he is conservative? He said he voted the way he thought is constituents wanted him to vote--that's why he got elected--to represent the people. Many politicians vote for things they may not personally agree with, but there job is not to run their own personal agenda. That's the problem with you liberals in a nutshell--you want someone--judge, politician--whoever--to espouse what you want rather than what the majority wants. Who the hell are you to dictate to the rest of society your morality! This guy did exactly what he was supposed to do. If he was a hunter, but his constituents were for gun control, would you expect him to vote for his own personal interests?

I think this speaks volumes about how you see our representative system of government: "It should represent Linsky's interests!" What a hypocrite you are calling this guy a hypocrite.

[XL Guru]

>> If he was a hunter, but his constituents were for gun control ...

And, like I suggested, if I was e.g. a Christian and my constituents decided they were for abolishing religion, I would stand down ; wouldn't you?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by XL Guru

>> If he was a hunter, but his constituents were for gun control ...

And, like I suggested, if I was e.g. a Christian and my constituents decided they were for abolishing religion, I would stand down ; wouldn't you?

Yes, but that's a different issue because I have to follow the Constitution--you take an oath to do that. State abolishment of religion would be unconstitutional so I could not vote for it without violating my oath. Now if gun control went so far as to ban guns completely, that would also be unconstitutional.

And actually, this is why the man deserves credit because most people would have difficulty voting against their own interests. I would hope that if I was elected, I would exercise the will of the people provided it did not go against first the Constitution (federal and state) and 2nd against my conscience (i.e., if I thought what my constituents wanted was morally wrong, I could not vote for it in good conscience. But provided those restrictions do not apply, my duty is to vote the way the people that elected me want me to vote.

[XL Guru]

"against my conscience" is spot-on. Would you prefer it more direct? If you were gay and your constituents wanted you to vote anti-gay, you would stand down, correct?

[XL Guru]

>> if I thought what my constituents wanted was morally wrong,
>> I could not vote for it in good conscience

If he thinks what his constituents want is morally right then he acknowledges that his views are immoral, thus he is not fit to serve.

What is "vote for it in good conscience"? ; you'd vote for it but would feel "a bit uncomfortable"?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by XL Guru

"against my conscience" is spot-on. Would you prefer it more direct? If you were gay and your constituents wanted you to vote anti-gay, you would stand down, correct?

No--you are classifying it incorrectly as "anti-gay." The article said:

Spokane Mayor James E. West told a national audience Tuesday that he voted against gay-friendly measures because that was what his conservative district wanted, even though he was a closeted homosexual.

There is a big difference between supporting anti-gay measures and voting against gay-friendly measures. As an example, I would not have a problem voting against gay marriage. Going against one's conscience is going against what is morally wrong--not allowing gay relationships is morally wrong--forcing the majority to accept gay marriage is also wrong (even though as a gay man, I might like to be married). Going against one's personal preferences is fine.

Examples. Law says:

Gays can't eat at restaurants (I vote against)
State must recognize gay marriage (I vote against)
Employers can't discriminate based on sexual orientation (I vote for, but only if there is an exemption for small businesses--don't want to force a fundamentalist business owner to hire gays).

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by XL Guru

>> If he thinks what his constituents want is morally right then he acknowledges that his views are immoral, thus he is not fit to serve.

That is a completley illogical statement. I may not personally believe its OK to sleep around, but that does not mean to do so is immoral either. Conduct is not either moral or immoral (conduct can be morality neutral) and it is also relative to a certain extent.

[XL Guru]

LOL! I didn't classify anything, since no measures were actually specified.

>> Going against one's personal preferences

is completely different from one's personal beliefs ; which is of course why you didn't answer the specific question. But it was a cute try.

I'm done with this guy. Someone PM me if it looks like he'll need a bigger shovel. ('night Mulder ).