Friday, November 20, 2009

Extremist Allen Quist for Congress? Really?

We all long for the story that writes itself. It truly is a writer's dream. In nearly 4 years on the Minnesota Blogosphere I hadn't really come across one...

Until now!

Allen Quist is running for Congress...against Congressman Tim Walz.

The story broke a few weeks ago now and surprisingly, posts about the extremist Quist are few and far between.

So who is Allen Quist? Simply put, a liberal bloggers delight.

The short answer is that Quist was elected to three terms in the Minnesota House and ran for Governor twice.

We've never been fans of the short answer though.

A quick look at Allen Quist's Gubernatorial coverage in both 1994 and 1998 tell us a lot about the man.
During our interview in St Peter, his home town, Quist confirmed his belief that, in a household, the husband is genetically predisposed to be master of his wife. 'In marriage, there is a political arrangement between the man and a wife, and in the political arrangement the man should be the head of the house. I think it's instinctive,' said Quist, 49, who served as a state legislator in the mid-1980s. 'I know it's true. You look in the animal world versus the human and it's virtually universal in the animal world.'
Quist also recalls the death of his first wife seven years ago when she was pregnant. He had the undertaker remove the 6 1/2 - month fetus from the womb and display it in his dead wife's arms lying in a glass-fronted casket. That way, he said, he and his family were able fully to grieve the unborn child.
First, voters have heard a lot about Quist's reputation as a three-term legislator almost obsessed with sexual morality, including an undercover foray into a sex-oriented bookstore in Mankato, hours and hours of speeches on the House floor railing against homosexuality and pornography and sponsorship of a bill to require AIDS testing for all marriage license applicants.

He has not made a big deal out of those issues in his campaign, and explains that he got caught up in those issues, in part, because he was given grossly inflated estimates by the state about the spread of AIDS.
Still, with a month to go before the primary, polls show that Quist's negatives are very high and that, as people get to know him, a significant percentage strongly dislike him or disapprove of his politics.

Vin Weber, the former Minnesota congressman who pioneered the Reagan coalition in the 1980s - a coalition Quist claims to be trying to resurrect - predicted last spring that Quist would become unelectable as the news media and his opponents defined him, especially in a general election.

"He won't wear well at all," predicted Mike Triggs, a former campaign manager for Carlson. "Mr. and Mrs. Gopher are going to think [the Quists] are damn weird." Over the course of the campaign, some odd angles have been revealed about both Quist and his activist wife, Julie, who at times has been almost as intensively covered as the candidate.
“Did dinosaurs and people live at the same time, and why do so many recently discovered ancient art works accurately picture dinosaurs?”

“How should we interpret the numerous references in ancient literature to dinosaurs (called “dragons” before 1850 AD), and what are the creatures described in Job chapters 40-41?

“What is the status of various examples of irreducible complexity, and have these examples been explained in Darwinian terms?”

“How has Darwinism influenced American law and politics?”
In his 1980 book The Abortion Revolution, Quist even compares abortion to Hitler’s murder of millions of Jews.
I think you get the picture...

Quist has a long history of extremist actions and views. I wonder what Congresswoman Bachmann thinks about her friend's opinion that women remain submissive to their husband? Regardless, it will be interesting to see Quist go through a quixotic campaign down in the Fighting First, only to get thumped by Congressman Walz.

Since 2007, Congressman Walz has served the constituents of the 1st CD in an honorable and consistent fashion. He's held countless open forums and meetings across the First that have brought unprecedented transparency to the political process in the district.

Are we going to let Quist and his extremist views muck that up?

9 comments:

taxpaying liberal said...

You should have Quist talk to blue woman about her role in your marriage.

eric zaetsch said...

The man is a prolific writer. Like the Everready bunny he keeps going and going - big with the EdWatch crowd:

http://www.edwatch.org/updates09/071709-mapsw.htm

http://www.edwatch.org/updates/063004.htm

http://www.edwatch.org/updates07/101607-religionpsw.htm

http://www.edwatch.org/updates09/070409-freedom21w.htm

http://www.edwatch.org/updates/092502.htm

I think he homeschools his aquarium fish.

I can picture the GOP happy with Quist, totally overjoyed that he is stepping up to the task and not wanting any other potential candidate in the way. I can picture Sutton and Brodkorb now. And Luke Hellier at MDE having nothing but kudos and cheers.

eric zaetsch said...

http://www.residualforces.com/2009/11/20/oh-my-strib-really-outdoes-itself-to-cover-for-washington-walz/

Chris Truscott said...

This guy makes Michele Bachmann look moderate.

eric zaetsch said...

In an earlier comment, I put that link up to Triple-A, on the situation, and in retrospect, it's worth quoting his post wrap-up:

"It will be interesting to see what establishment Republican leadership does. Quist is a real conservative, who has received the usual just before election day – media lashing on the very first day. I’m wondering if team Sutton/Brodkorb will get nervous about someone who is not afraid to wear his principles on his sleeve. Quist running in the 1st will be an interesting and very public, test case to see if they will or will not intervene or undercut Districts. Oh you know, like will they race around trying to find *anyone* else who could run and then provide them with support from the shadows to prevent Quist from getting the endorsement? If Quist gets the nod will Sutton-Brodkorb pull the plug on the 1st and divert resources to another District with someone a little less criticized in the Strib… "

Quist has support. Parts of the GOP are speaking a bit distrustfully of each other, of leadership, on whether Sutton or Brodkorb might try to roust up an opposition RINO against Quist.

That Congressional district could be a focal thing between now and a year from now, given we have Sixth District GOP folks telling them to keep the faith.

theMom said...

Blue man said, "I wonder what Congresswoman Bachmann thinks about her friend's opinion that women remain submissive to their husband?"

I don't know Ms Bachmann personally, but I'm a member of a sister church body to that which Ms Bachmann belongs. In fact I was raised within the church body of which she's a member. I can't speak for Ms Bachmann nor Mr. Quist, but I can certainly offer my personal defense of the position which Quist espouses.

I'd rather defend it from a Biblical view than the biological one Quist uses. But that in no means I will demand those of different faiths to agree. My only goal is to defend a position.

As a Bible believing Christian, I humbly bow to the Biblical principle that within a marriage, someone has to be ultimately responsible for the family. God has given that responsibility to the husband. Along with that comes the demand that a husband "love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it."

Neither of these are easy tasks. Taken together, neither implies an abusive or demanding attitude of a husband toward a wife. It is simply and acknowledgment that one person holds the ultimate responsibility.

In history, this "simbiotic" relationship has gone through various evolutions, not all of them ideal and certainly, often abused. But in most marriages in which a God-fearing couple tries to follow these principles, this works very well. There is a mutual love and respect and nowhere is it implied that the husband has a right to abuse the noble responsibility he holds.

In fact, in most cases today, the men are failing to hold their share of the responsibility and women end up being both a breadwinner and the primary household manager and child rearer..

eric zaetsch said...

theMOM-

So, responsibility, fine.

Quist, if you read, was on authority.

Any thoughts on that?

AUTHORITY NORMS IN THE FAMILY. If you have a viewpoint.

It used to be phrased "Who wears the pants in the family."

Styles change, Quist does not.

theMom said...

Eric,

I'll try this again. I left a second comment last night, but it got lost somewhere in the cyberworld.

Yes, I said responsibility. But in my marriage, and according to my worldview, responsibility and authority are two sides of the same coin. Let me try to explain.

Since my husband is ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of his family, He deserves the right to the final say.

In many situations, any difference of opinion is trivial, inconvenient maybe, but not really a big deal. For instance, if I make beans for supper and my husband wants meat. "Make your own meat, dude." And he does. or he decides it's not that important to him after all. Inconvenient, but of no real import.

But for big things, such as how to best pay off our ever mounting debt, or what kind of limits to put on our teenage kids, if there is a difference of opinion on matters of familial well-being, we discuss it. We both present our case. Sometimes that is enough to come ot an agreement or compromise.

But for those situations in which a true difference of opinion continues, I submit to my husband's opinion.

I don't always agree. I try not to say, " I told you so, if things go awry. But because he is ultimately accountable for the family, I leave him the decision.

Again, this idea stems from my religious views. I believe that God has defined various realms of responsibility in this world. Within each realm, He spells out who holds the ultimate responsibility. Not everyone operates their marriage under such auspices. I certainly can't expect people without a Biblical worldview to follow my precepts. Nor would I demand them within a civic construct.

When asked, I would have to say that, yes, I think a man has authority over a woman within a marriage. But I would hope for a chance to clarify my position and hope also to not be taken out of context.

I don't know the context of Quist's statements.

Also, for the record, I don't necessarily agree with his "domination of males in nature" thing. Perhaps among mammals, but even that is a pretty broad brush stroke. I'd have to read the statement in it's entirety.

But I do agree with the core of what he says, that a husband has authority over his wife.

Phoenix Woman said...

theMom:

This is rather late, but what do you think of his marrying his second wife barely six months after the death of his first? http://www.e-democracy.org/1994/other/Strib_profiles/QUIST_profile.html