Of course, “both” is possible… Let’s look at a recent tweet sent by Minnesota Public Radio reporter Tom Scheck:

Reporter Scheck was covering last Saturday’s MN GOP Central Committee meeting at a hotel in Bloomington, MN – where there was to be an election to replace the recently resigned party deputy chair, “Mud Slinger Mike” Brodkorb. Leading up to that meeting, there was wide speculation that had the party chair, “FEC Tony” Sutton, not resigned – the day before the meeting – a vote would be pushed to push ol’ FEC Tony out for, essentially, malfeasance.

So this was an important meeting, and lots of GOPers showed up – with some giving speeches, such as that non-co-sponsor to ban insider trading by Members of Congress, Erik Paulsen.

Paulsen normally doesn’t toss red meat to the party faithful; rather, he tries to pretend he’s a moderate. So his comment to the faithful – Barney Frank not running for reelection is the best news of the week; even better than Minnesota running an unexpected “good news” budget surplus – was surprising.

Not surprising that he believes it; surprising because he said it. In public. Where reporters could hear it – and tweet it.

But it raises the question: is noted homophobe Paulsen glad to see Barney gone because Barney is gay? Or is noted anti-regulation/oversight “free-marketeer” Erik Paulsen glad to see Barney gone because Barney co-wrote a bill that will reform Wall Street and provide consumer protection?

Or, both?

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)