Ok, so a gay person does not "deserve" a cabinet position, but riddle me this,

[Neshanic]

there is not one single gay person in the ENTIRE NATION that could not fill one spot in the cabinet? Not ONE!

So again we have to hear about the purity of decision, the message it says by picking the right person,( oh and by the way you screaming fanatics over Hillary should really just have some drinks), and doing the right thing.

The RIGHT thing would be sending a powerfull message to the anti-gay bigots, AND finding someone that would be right for the job who happens to be gay.

But we all know that person does not exist.

[Renegade08]

1. Okay, name some gay people who could be considered for each cabinet position.

[Neshanic]

2. Here we go.

[Renegade08]

5. Well? Where are the names?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMDemDist2]

8. Barney Franks

he's be great at HUD I think.

sadly, most folks with high political ambition don't dare come out as gay, their career would be a non starter. Franks was an exception from a solidly liberal state.

I don't know if Neapolitano is gay, but she'd be great too.

[Renegade08]

9. Frank's one of the dem leaders in the House. Why would he give that up

for a temporary job as HUD secretary?

[NMDemDist2]

he chairs a big cmte, but he's not in the leadership n/t

[Renegade08]

14. By leader, I'm also in terms of national profile and power.

Remember, he's the guy who slammed the republicans for being crybaby whiners for trying to blame Pelosi for their failure to garner enough republican votes for the bailout.

[LittleBlue]

18. Frank already has Congressional oversight of the bailout

Short of being named Treasury Secretary, he will continue to serve in one of the most influential positions in the US right now.

HUD would be a major demotion.

[bridgit]

49. He does? Wow! If that's the case dude needs to get on with the overseeing...

Cause Paulsen and his gangsters are throwing money into black holes like there's no tomorrow x(

[HughMoran]

50. Well, at least the hard working prostitutes are making out well

:rofl:

[bridgit]

54. Yikes! Slipping into the sack with some'ah that junk would be hard work indeed...

Way more than a patriot duty :patriot:

[JI7]

48. he wouldn't, he said he didn't want to be Senator either

which makes sense since it would take time for him to reach the power level he has in the house. if he was younger he might.

[HughMoran]

10. Good choice - it's Frank, not Franks BTW

:D

[Orrex]

19. That's not really a valid demand

The objection isn't "every cabinet post should be filled by a qualified gay person," so there's no reason to provide a list of qualified gay candidates for each post.

For the purposes of making the point, it is sufficient to post just a few possibilities; it isn't even necessary to cover all of the cabinet positions.

[Renegade08]

46. Of course. But, I'm still waiting for just a couple of plausible suggestions.

[Hippo_Tron]

91. Barney Frank would be a good Treasury Secretary or maybe Fed Chair

But I think Obama is leaning toward somebody more centrist for Treasury Secretary. FDR had a Republican Treasury Secretary because "Wall Street slept better knowing a Republican was watching over their money." Obama is really big on following the lead of Presidents who have had bipartisan cabinets.

[dsc]

93. I already did

and fat lot of good it did. But here goes. Barney Frank for treasury. Roberta Attenburg for HUD (she was deputy under Clinton), Mayor Cicilline of Providence for HUD (same qualifications that Ciscernos had when he was named). I could go on.

[davidinalameda]

3. I saw that Roberta Achtenberg was on one of the transition teams

not sure if she's up for a cabinet positions

honestly, I can't think of too many out gays or lesbians who may be qualified for a cabinet position

face it, we're still stuck in the minor leagues

[grantcart]

4. why don't we wait and see

of course it would be a disappointment if the cabinet doesn't really reflect all of America.


An administration that doesn't have any gays in senior positions would be missing something important indeed.

[SwampG8r]

7. this presumes much

first it assumes no one obama picks is gay
we do not know if this is true or not
as 2 GOPers ,larry craig and charlie crist demonstrate gay isnt like black
you cant spot it from a distance

second it presumes no gay man or woman has served at a cabinet level or higher
again we do not know this to be a fact as closets were deeper in the past

[Neshanic]

11. Perfect. That's what we need, deeply closeted gay people in the cabinet no less.

You missed the point boat. It sailed right by you.

[LittleBlue]

16. Do you think appointing someone because they are gay

will somehow improve the way homosexuality is viewed in American society?

[Neshanic]

17. Wow, I can't believe you said that.

[LittleBlue]

29. Said what?

[Neshanic]

30. "will somehow improve the way homosexuality is viewed in American society?"

Pretty obvious doncha ya think?

[LittleBlue]

37. Obvious what?

Did you miss Prop 8?

How is any of this going to lift or abate discrimination against gays?

[CTyankee]

129. I think it brings a different perspective to the table and if we don't do that

American society will never be able to have a view of gay people that shows their ability on a national level, will it?

Diversity is a very good thing for us and we need it more than ever!

[SwampG8r]

20. big talk from someone who

just got pimpslapped by mr 11 posts

[Neshanic]

22. I did?

[LittleBlue]

12. Nobody DESERVES a cabinet position

A cabinet position should be filled by someone deemed worthy to serve in that function, period.

[Neshanic]

13. I have the ability to attract limousine liberals. They flock to me!

[LittleBlue]

15. Whom do you propose?

Is there someone in particular you feel is most worthy?

I mean, unless someone is getting the shaft here by being highly qualified, but being rejected due to sexual orientation, I don't see what's the problem.

I don't see a name in this thread who isn't getting proper consideration.

[Neshanic]

21. You just disqualified yourself upthread.

[MadBadger]

23. You really are all hat no cattle

[LittleBlue]

25. You seem pretty intolerant

Responding with flippant remarks and vague accusations doesn't win anyone over to your side.

I'm pretty sure a mod is going to shut this down unless you make some sense and stop being blatantly offensive.

[Neshanic]

31. Yes, the intolerant gay guy. That's me.

[HughMoran]

36. No, just intolerant

.

[Neshanic]

39. Uppity gay person. You know the type.

[HughMoran]

42. lol

You are so over the top in this thread - you should be embarrassed.

[Neshanic]

45. No, I left embarrased when I came out. What's your excuse?

[Occam Bandage]

57. For fuck's sake. The whims of your penis are not a shield from unrelated criticism.

Stop pretending they are.

[Neshanic]

58. Amazing.

[Occam Bandage]

60. In every way.

:*

[Neshanic]

64. Shilling Log Cabinisms does not make you amazing.

[Occam Bandage]

72. You're flip-flopping, Nesh. Am I amazing or aren't I?

[Neshanic]

73. I am flip flopping? Are you out as a gay person?

[LittleBlue]

59. ...

:spray:

[JVS]

65. What?!?!?!

FUCK! Now I have to come up with a new excuse for my behavior. I've been relying on "my penis made me do it" for over 14 years!

[GreenFiles]

114. WOW!

How crude and obnoxious. Userban?

[Neshanic]

132. Feel free.

[HughMoran]

Agreed

The O/P appears to be drunk or something.

[LittleBlue]

47. Agreed

He's either drunk or feigning drunkenness, since now his posts have obvious spelling errors.

[cali]

92. the op is always like this. always.

[blondeatlast]

150. Yup. It's a sport s/h can feign prowess at since they are more or less anonymous.

How nice for her/him to feel validated by our mocking her/him.

[grantcart]

24. well that could be handy when you can't get a cab lol

[Neshanic]

41. Yes, true.

[Recursion]

120. Does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence...

...that a gay person would have been offered a cabinet position but then was not because he or she is gay?

If not, then you're doing the Republican version, eg: "find a black guy to appoint to SCOTUS" or "find a woman to nominate for VP". That's not how we operate in the good party.

[grantcart]

26. In order to attract someone they are going to have to go outside of the political sphere

and look at trying to attract someone from the business or academic community.

[Posteritatis]

27. How often does this happen?

Serious question. I actually don't know and am trying to figure out what I think of the idea in general (not just in this instance).

[grantcart]

40. It happens a lot

Especially in senior posts related to commerce, security and state (Albright/Rice/Kissinger), labor and also key legal positions.



There are very few out of the closet gay politicians but a lot more in the academic and professional world. BTW McCain top legal counsel for the campaign was a well known gay attorney. http://www.lesbianation.com/article.cfm?section=1&id=20673

[Posteritatis]

44. Thanks for the info (nt)

[Neshanic]

33. I agree with that. That would be a great way to fill a position.

[grantcart]

43. Even more important than getting one high level appointment

and that is important and will be disappointed if it doesn't happen would be a heavy sprinkling of gay professionals through the 2nd 3rd 4th level appointments.

Even McCain's head legal counsel was gay. http://www.lesbianation.com/article.cfm?section=1&id=20673

[qwlauren35]

163. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know why everyone keeps missing this.

I thought the entire point of electing this guy was to bring fresh talent to government politics. Which means pulling in OUTSIDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listening to lists of names of people already in DC is making me barf.

[Neshanic]

28. You see, this really is an experiment in how fast supposed "open minded" Democrats will squeal

when "The Gay" is proposed for a high profile job.

Good work gang, you did well with your little minds.

[LittleBlue]

32. Who is "The Gay"?

Is it a person, or a slur?

I don't think anyone insulted gays in this thread.

[Neshanic]

34. Oh brother....

[Renegade08]

35. When you actually propose some gays for a high profile job, maybe then I'll squeal.

Are you going to answer my questions about Giulano?

[Neshanic]

38. Are you in my stalker juniors club?

[Renegade08]

62. Are you writing a lengthy post detailing Giulano's urban policy positions?

Is that why you haven't answer my questions about Giulano yet?

[Neshanic]

69. 100 is themagic number for you.

[Renegade08]

75. Why are you playing games instead of doing something productive for your own cause?

It seems infinitely silly to not write about what you know about Giulano until some anonymous poster hits 100 posts, especially if you want to help him become more visible nationally and thus a bit more likely to get some consideration for HUD secretary.

Btw, you do know that Giulano is a republican, right?

[Neshanic]

77. You mean "our" cause don't you?

[Renegade08]

88. No, because my cause is not to elevate identity politics over getting the people

who Obama believes are the best people to work with him.

I'm all for an inclusive cabinet, and I have no doubt that Obama will "cast a wide net" in his search. I think Obama knows a thing or two about the importance of ensuring that the "old boy's network" doesn't replicate itself. With that said, you're going to be disappointed if he puts token-identity politics above assembling the kind of team that will work well together and under Obama.

[Celebrandil]

51. We have two gay ministers here in Sweden

The environment and migration ministers of the current right-wing government.

[scheming daemons]

52. Did I miss Obama naming his cabinet?

Aren't you presuming much?


Not a SINGLE spot has been filled yet.... and you presume that no gays will get a spot?


Based on what?


How about this novel idea: Let Obama name his cabinet.... and THEN bitch and moan about who he did or didn't pick.

[last1standing]

53. It really is time to appoint an openly GLBT person to a high position.

I don't think it has to be a cabinet post but it would only be right for Obama to show his support to a community that voted overwhelmingly for him. The only question is who? Where does one find a qualified individual considering there are almost no openly GLBT politicians. I think he would have to look to academia for a candidate, but then he has spent much of his life in universities so he should know some qualified people there.

Maybe we need a GLBT czar who can raise awareness of the issues and struggles we face on a daily basis. I know that many people even here at DU are surprised to find out that we are the only group in this country who can be fired, demoted, harassed, evicted, and segregated without any recourse from federal laws. We can lose our property if our partner dies, we can't even demand to be admitted to see them in the hospital. We are ridiculed for our transient "lifestyle" then stripped of our basic freedom to settle down and marry.

And then people wonder why we're so angry. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

55. A gay civil rights position sounds to me like a good idea. Obama has two websites up. They must

have a "contact us" feature. Groups like HRC should be working on this and individuals should be flooding the websites.

[1corona4u]

119. Do you have the stats for the gays that voted for Obama...

I'd like to see them. I think blonde females, over 40 overwhelmingly voted for Obama too, so should I be offended if there's not a blonde 40ish female in the cabinet, or staff?

[last1standing]

125. Can you be fired for being blonde? Or evicted from your home?

If not, then I suggest you may want to stop comparing a legally oppressed minority with hair color.

Otherwise, people might rightly think you're an asshole.

[1corona4u]

127. Actually, I can be fired for being blonde...

I live in Florida, an “employment at will” state, and anyone can legally fire anyone for any reason.

Can a gay person be evicted from their home for being gay? If so, please provide a link.

[last1standing]

148. That is not only wrong but willfullly so.

Even 'at will' states (Michigan is one of them) don't allow for discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability or political persuasion. They leave out sexual orientation and identity so they are not covered. You want a link to that? Just check the God Damned employment laws. It's not that difficult.

And yes, housing is the same. There is no law covering sexual orientation or identity so it remains legal to discriminate. As it's impossible to provide you a link showing that a law doesn't exist, if you don't believe it then it's up to you to provide a link showing that a law does exist. Just to help you out, it would have been called ENDA, but the homophobes shot it down.

[1corona4u]

158. Anyone with a pea for a brain would understand that I meant

anything that doesn't fall under the laws of discrimination. :eyes: (as far as employment goes) I know the law, because I have been in management for 20 years. You missed my point though. Yes, I could fire someone if I didn't like the color of their hair. I never have, but I could have.

I also know the law because I went through a 4 year lawsuit, for discrimination, and sexual harassment, which I won.

By the way, Joe Biden supports discrimination laws to include 'sexual orientation. Did you know that? I bet not.

"Ending Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation: Senator Biden believes legal recognition should not be denied same-sex couples. He advocates for re-examining federal laws, including the tax code, to ensure our national laws are not unfair to same-sex couples, and that committed adults who are adopting are not discriminated against because of sexual orientation. He supports letting states determine how to recognize civil unions and define marriage."

Stopping Discrimination at Work: While workplace discrimination is not as obvious as when the Senator Biden’s ancestors faced “No Irish Need Apply,” signs, today minorities, women, and gays hear excuses like, “she won’t fit in,” or “he’s too qualified,” as employers pass on them. It may be subtle, but it’s hate in the heart, nevertheless. So Senator Biden supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit job discrimination of any kind. He also supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act to overturn a Supreme Court decision that makes it more difficult for women to bring pay discrimination cases.


http://biden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=be6206f3-0b69-4553-9ce4-45eb1c82c62d

Obama supports it as well. I'd say the days of people focusing on that topic of discussion are numbered.

[last1standing]

159. Standard rule: If you have to resort to childish insults you've lost the argument.

You're also on ignore so say what you like, I won't be reading it.

[Neshanic]

142. Vista

[Neshanic]

143. Good post. They really do not get it.

[last1standing]

151. When you see people compare sexuality to hair color you begin to understand how far there is to go.

They got theirs so now we can go fuck ourselves.

[pnwmom]

147. "Openly GLBT" is the real issue. I'm sure there have been non-open

gays in high government positions before.

[qwlauren35]

164. I'm still curious about this.

You wrote: we are the only group in this country who can be fired, demoted, harassed, evicted, and segregated without any recourse from federal laws.


Why is gay marriage so much more important that the things you named above?

[last1standing]

165. Are you joking?

Just in case you're not, I'll answer it seriously, but with astonishment.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. There is marriage equality or marriage for some and not for others. Marriage is a legal contract signed by two parties who wish to legally combine their assets, debts and create a host of rights and responsibilities between themselves for the protection of their property, their children and themselves. To allow certain people to enter into this contract but no others is to deny full equality under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

So it is not more important or less important. It is merely another example of how the GLBT community is denied basic human, civil rights.

Now please tell me you were joking in your post. Please!

[Occam Bandage]

56. I'm GLBT. I believe that GLBTs do not "deserve" a cabinet position.

I think tokenism is stupid. I must be a homophobe.

[scheming daemons]

61. You're a self-hater, apparently.

;-)

[Neshanic]

66. You said it. Not me.

[Neshanic]

63. Yes, that's what we want. First gay bar we see we will grab some person

and shuttle them over for a look see.

It's not about deserving. It's about looking a little harder and a little farther than past "progressive" administrations.

[scheming daemons]

67. The fact that you're putting "progressive" in quotes in interesting...

...considering that Obama hasn't yet named one fucking cabinet position.


It's interesting how you are sitting in judgement of cabinet choices that haven't happened yet.


Pre-emptive moaning is unbecoming.

[Neshanic]

68. I am just posting in reaction to the "The Gay" and the unworthiness factor.

You know, picking people like they always have, by pure clarity and logic. No messy side things to consider.

[Occam Bandage]

71. You know what? I'll be honest here. No snark, no posturing.

If there was a choice between two people, and one was gay, I'd really hope that Obama picked the gay guy. If I was aware that Obama had found someone that he thought would do a good job, that person was gay, and Obama picked someone else that was so close in qualifications to our gay guy that it took serious consideration to decide, I would be profoundly disappointed.

Indeed, if Obama does not end up picking any open GLBTs, I will be personally disappointed. However, I will not be disappointed in the Obama administration. I want to see more GLBTs in positions of leadership, but I don't want there to be the slightest reason to believe that those people wouldn't be there if they weren't gay. Frankly, it would only make me feel like GLBTs are so looked-down-upon that we need to have token representatives; that our orientation is such a societal handicap that straight folk need to find one of us and say, "see, look, they can do good work too!". Maybe I'm just in deep denial, but I don't think that's the case. I hope that's not the case, at any rate.

I could discuss it further, but I'm getting a bit rambly, and I'm a touch drunk so I'm sure my coherence isn't quite what it could be. Anyway, this kind of issue really goes to my sense of identity. Maybe I'm approaching it from a position of hope, and maybe from one of fear. I don't know.

[Neshanic]

74. Fear? Fear of WHAT?

[Occam Bandage]

I thought I was pretty clear. I'll try again.

Basically, I think I don't want special positive attention paid to the sexuality of cabinet choices during the hiring process because I don't like to think that GLBTs need special positive attention paid to their sexuality. Because the only reason why GLBTs would need that is if non-heterosexuality was so socially damaging that success was unlikely without that special attention.

Now, to the hope and fear:

Maybe it's that I hope the deck isn't so stacked against me as a GLBT that we need a token. Maybe it's that I fear that it is, and don't want to admit it.

I dunno.

[Neshanic]

82. Do you think that the gay issue would never come up IF this occured?

Is there a get out of gay publicity card? Of course they would make news of it. So whats the difference? If he picks a Hispanic then there will be the news of a "hispanic" cabinet member. Fill in the blank______________. The media will. Pick your group.

Of course the deck is stacked against us, where have you been living for the last whatever years? Sweden?

I am asking the question. Do people here actually think that there is no single gay person that can be found with the credentials or credentials and be gay to be considered for a Cabinet Post? Out of the ENTIRE nation?

[Occam Bandage]

86. I don't think that anyone here believes that there are no qualified gay people.

I'm pretty sure that there are thousands of qualified people for any given cabinet spot. I'm sure that you could create an all-black cabinet, an all-woman cabinet, an all-gay cabinet, or whatever and it would work out okay. And I would love to see a diverse cabinet. However, at the same time, I don't think it would be in anyone's interest for the President to have, as a major concern, ensuring that every identity group gets its representative. If Obama decides that the best possible cabinet does not happen to include a gay guy, then whatever. I don't think that's a major missed opportunity.

I mean, suppose there was a gay Secretary of Transportation. The media would make brief note of it, but brief indeed. I mean, how big a deal was it when Bush made Elaine Chao the first Chinese-American (and the first Asian-American woman) in the history of the cabinet? Not exactly a firestorm.

[Neshanic]

87. It all depends on the opportunity if it was a major miss or not...

and we will see.

[Neshanic]

76. Now you have betrayed yourself. You have the baggage but no where to haul it.

Here I am just proposing that the net of possibilities be thrown far and wide for the person RIGHT FOR THE JOB! Also having the HOPE, and CHANGE, that the net would get us all of the qualified AND maybe just be gay too.

I am the sad sack? I am the one hoping for this possibility then to be attacked with the same tired shit that gets thrown around here by the same people?

And you have fear? Then give me shit!???!

Fuck that, and you deserve it. Busting another gay persons balls because they hope for that big net cast by President Obama.

I would not presume to guess your gay life or shit you had to go through to get there, but don't fuck with other gays that don't mind saying what would make a better future for them and others to come.

Unfuckinbelievable!

[Occam Bandage]

80. Nesh, I don't think you understand (edited for even greater clarity)

I wasn't explaining why I hold the position I do; I've done that elsewhere. I was explaining why this issue is personal to me. It was intended as a backdrop, and not as a full justification. I'm not sure if you're deliberately confusing the two. I'll assume I was not adequately clear, and apologize.

Let me be clear, now:

1. I do not think that tokenism in general leads to good government. I started a thread about that. You can reach it from the main page; it's #3 on the Greatest right now.

2. I do not think that GLBT tokenism will help build a better life for anyone except the guy who gets to be the token gay cabinet member. At best it would be kinda cool.

3. In addition, I have a dog in this fight. I don't like thinking that GLBTs "need" a token. However, whether we do or we don't, I don't think tokens fix anything, and that has nothing to do with my hope/fear that gays don't "need" tokens.

[Neshanic]

83. Nobody is going to be Obama's "token" anything. That's a fact.

If the right wants to call it a "token" appointment, let them.

I think that if this occured the person would realize the importance of it, and not be along for the ride.

[Renegade08]

85. I agree. Bush had a cabinet that "looked like America." It was a crappy cabinet.

And don't even get me started on Clarence Thomas, an ideological wingnut freeper of a Supreme Court justice.

[Renegade08]

90. Your first post doesn't say cast a wide net. It just bashes obama for his phantom cabinet picks.

You seem to assume that Obama is not casting a wide net. Do you know this for a fact?

[Neshanic]

70. Oh and another thing...

Strange how posts can contain all manner of possibilities, conjecture, and wishing, without the nasty attacks. Why they are not gay that's why. Are there demands for a current full up to the minute qulifications? No. just talking about possibilities.

But add gay into it then Houston we have a problem. "Why? How come? Demanding is it not? How presumptuous!"

My fellow Democrats....

[backscatter712]

78. I'd rather that Obama pick the best people for the Cabinet...

regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc.

[Neshanic]

79. No problem there. Just cast the big net.

[backscatter712]

81. Of all the people who've been sent to the Oval Office,

I'd say Obama's the best at doing just what we suggest.

[Renegade08]

84. Okay, tried to help you out, but, the one person I came up with is having some problems.

Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. I don't think he'd fit in as a cabinet appointee, but, I thought he could be a possibility for assistant attorney general for civil rights.

But, Romero is having some difficulties just holding onto his own job right now, as a faction of the ACLU is calling for his firing. Sounds like a pretty nasty internal conflict.

[cali]

89. as ususal, you're pulling crap out of your nether regions and

No one here has said there aren't gay and lesbian people who aren't qualified. No on. Do fucking try reading for comprehension. What people have said, is that no group or individual is owed a cabinet seat.

[NashVegas]

94. I Believe There Will Be At Least One High Profile Gay in Obama's Admin

That is to say, the job and the person will be high profile, but their homosexuality will remain closeted.


:shrug:

[Doityourself]

95. So Obama should seek out a gay person, specifically? n/t

[ecstatic]

96. I am 100% in favor of affirmative action... If two candidates

are virtually equal, and one candidate is a straight white male--give the position to the minority--whether it be a gay person, woman, or racial minority. We have enough straight white men in government. Let's switch things around a bit.

[Thothmes]

155. And if the candidates are African American or Gay?

[ecstatic]

161. that's when it gets tricky :) nt

[AllentownJake]

97. Name the people who are openly gay

who would like to serve in an Obama administration.

Being gay guy/girl unknow really doesn't give people much to go on for whether they would do a good job.

I think these people would rather get the job on their qualifications and not based on their sexuality btw. I doubt anyone wants to be the token gay guy/girl.

I believe there are qualified people I just want to know who you have in mind. Specifically.

[bridgit]

98. Inconclusive & divisive representation of important issues will less-facilitate their resolution

[tigereye]

99. I think Clinton had a variety of gay individuals in his admin, didn't he?

sorry if this has been rehashed....


I would think that Obama would have a number of competent staffers who also happen to be gay in his admin. That's part of diversity and the face of the nation.

[dsc]

103. He had the square root of negative 0 openly gay cabinet secretaries

He had one, exactly one, confirmable openly gay employee (Roberta Actenburg) who actually got confirmed. Hormel was he second. He did do a good job of seeding openly gay employees in lower levels.

[DURHAM D]

126. Clinton appointed more than 150 members of the LGBT community to the executive branch.

Also, he appointed the first openly gay Ambassador (Hormel) and he appointed several judges as well.

The first openly gay person to serve in the White House was Midge Costanza. She was a Carter appointee. However, it is not clear that Carter knew at the time of the appointment that she was a lesbian but Midge never tried to hide the fact. She was apparently dismissed from the W.H. because of her activities on behalf of the community (Anita Bryant period).

[dsc]

156. I didn't mean to imply he didn't appoint gay people

he surely did, but my point was he only appoined two who needed confirmation and only one of those actually got that confirmation.

[Blarch]

100. wtf ?

[slackmaster]

101. Sorry, those jobs are too important to be used as window displays for Affirmative Action

I want to see President Obama pick the best person for each position without regard to factors unrelated to the person's ability to do the job.

[zulchzulu]

102. Tammy Baldwin would be a fantastic Secretary of Health and Human Services

She's my congresswoman and has been trying to get universal healthcare for years.

[1corona4u]

104. 'Equality" is not picking someone because of what they are....

or are not. Equality is picking someone despite what they are or are not. No one "deserves" or is owed anything. Period.

[Pisces]

105. We need more people to out themsleves like Crist. I am sure there will be a gay in the cabinet,

just in the closet.

[blm]

109. Isn't Rahm Emmanuel gay?

.

[camera obscura]

113. No, he has a wife and three kids - he just likes dancing

[dsc]

115. No

wife and kids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

[blm]

121. OH....I was thinking of his brother in LA. They look so much alike.

.

[dsc]

122. interesting if that one is true

and HBO converted a gay Ari into a straight homophobic Ari with a gay assistant on Entourage. On edit apparently Ari is married too but no kids.

[blm]

123. I don't watch Entourage, but hear it's a good show.

Sounds like someone is poking at Ari...or maybe politics inserted itself into his life. I know who to ask, though. Maybe over Thanksgiving holiday.

[nomaco-10]

106. How 'bout the best person for the job that just happens to be gay?

Wouldn't that be what we should all aspire to? Regardless of race, color, creed or gender, just the most qualified person for the job.

[demwing]

107. How about the best person for the job, REGARDLESS of whether they happen to be gay?

unless you're saying the same thing, I'm confused by your post. :P

[nomaco-10]

108. Yes, you are confused. Read my post again. n/t

[demwing]

117. I'll take you at your word

It's Sunday morning. I need more coffee. :)

[nomaco-10]

118. or some hair of the dog. whatever floats your boat. n/t

[book_worm]

110. As far as I know he hasn't named a single cabinet position as yet, so why don't you wait before

you start complaining?

[Honeycombe8]

111. So you KNOW the sexual orientation of everyone who might be in the cabinet?

I want some of that ESP Kool-Aid!

[Honeycombe8]

112. Is Susan Rice gay? Just askin'. nt

[nomaco-10]

116. WTF kind of query is that? n/t

[terrya]

124. May I ask for one thing?

I don't want to be seen as someone who doesn't care about the GLBT community. Who would request for a gay or lesbian Cabinet secretary and nothing else.

Can I ask this Adminstration and this Congress to please pass and enact legislation that matters to the GLBT community? A fully enclusive ENDA? The Matthew Shepard Act? Repeal, SOMETIME in the next few years, DADT and DOMA?

As a gay Democrat, a gay American, can I at least ask for that?

[Neshanic]

131. No, you can't, but according to the latest news there will be a republican to be named later.

In a wide-ranging interview that will air Sunday night on the CBS program, “60 Minutes,” President-elect Barack Obama said he would choose at least one Republican for a position in his cabinet but declined to hint at who he had in mind.

Replace "Republican" with "gay" and watch hilarity ensue. Who! How! Are they qualified?!!! Just saying someone????!! No other info? We want NAMES!

[bridgit]

133. There are many saddened faces; but Matthew Shepard's is one of the ones I see...

in my mind's eye when these matters get dragged so willfully far afield for lack of focus & gravity

[Neshanic]

134. I am so sorry we dissapoint you. That is the LAST thing we want. Your dissaproval.

[bridgit]

135. I'm thankful you don't speak for the issue

[Neshanic]

136. I am glad you are equally unheard.

[bridgit]

138. I'll bet you're a joy to behold sending your cobb salad back to the chief...

:rofl:

[Neshanic]

140. You are quite the 21st Century Democrat. Not a good thing.

[bridgit]

145. Your chances of offending me would be greatly enhanced if you only knew what you were talking about

[Neshanic]

152. I have no intentionof offending you. Your offense is your closed mind.

[bridgit]

153. Oh blah-dee, oh blah-da life goes ah-on, la-la how that life goes on

[Peacetrain]

128. How many cabinet people have been named so far?

[Neshanic]

130. "Obama Pledges to Appoint Republican to Cabinet" from latest page...

"In a wide-ranging interview that will air Sunday night on the CBS program, “60 Minutes,” President-elect Barack Obama said he would choose at least one Republican for a position in his cabinet but declined to hint at who he had in mind."

Jesus thank God the Republicans get taken care of!

Apparently this little item flys right by the gang here.

Just a "republican". No names. No other info actually. So what was that you all are saying about getting all the info first? Right person for the job? No just saying a Republican to be named later, but a republican all the same.

Thank GOD it's a generic, an unknown republican to an unknown post, open to conjecture, and it's not a gay person.

[dbmk]

139. I fail to see the argument here?

Unless you can argue that the person he has in mind is not qualified.

Maybe he saw someone extremely qualified and of a character where it would serve the country to have that part of the spectrum represented. And how that rules out something similar happening with a gay person. Or how it should mean that it has to happen.

Difference here is that Obama _has_ someone specific in mind. That is NOT comparable to a blanket request/wish for a gay cabinet member not followed by relevant options.

Do you really think he will pick a republican where it can easily be said that a specific democrat would be better?

[Neshanic]

141. Just sayin, a chair is ready for a republican. no info, no post named.

Replace Republican with gay and see the world fall apart.

[dbmk]

144. I see your point.

But as long as people vote for the republican and democratic parties, and not the straight and gay parties, the notion of including a republican is political and not social. Its about inclusion for the people that "lost" the election - in the broadest term definable.

That aside, he clearly has someone in mind. If it was clear that he would fill a position with a republican at ALL costs, then people would question that too. Just because he did not release a name does not mean there is none, and that a seat is reserved for "a republican".

If he said; There will be a gay member of my administration, indicating that he had picked someone - who was gay - there would be no hell breaking loose. At least not here.

[dsc]

157. actually he indicated no such thing according to the link

he said he would have a Republican, not that he had a particular one in mind.

[democrattotheend]

137. Do you have any particular gay people in mind?

Other than Barney Frank I can't really think of any openly gay politicians with any kind of national exposure or experience, and Frank has some ethical issues. I am all for diversity in the cabinet but I don't see any natural gay candidates for any of the positions, and if he picks someone who otherwise would never have been considered it becomes tokenism and I am opposed to that, just like I was opposed to tokenism when McCain picked Sarah Palin for VP. As a woman, I found that insulting. Maybe I am forgetting someone here but I can't really think of any openly gay people who seem like natural selections for the cabinet...if there are people I would love to hear it, and if there is someone qualified and well-suited to a position the gay community and others who support them should take up the cause for that particular candidate or candidates. But I don't think it makes sense to lobby for the selection of a gay cabinet member without having anyone specific to propose.

[pnwmom]

146. How do you know that none of the potential members is gay?

And for all we know, Bush has a gay cabinet secretary.

Oh . . . you must mean "out."

[Neshanic]

149. Yes, that would further gays everywhere, a deeply cabineted cabinet person. Think of how proud all

gays would be knowing that all the denials and republican attacks on the persons sexuality is for our own good and furtherance of us being seen as proud equal Americans with full equal rights.

This is a tradition I think we should continue from the Bush Era, deeply closetd gays in government.

It works for everyone, especially the leakers and people that need to be blackmailed.

[pnwmom]

154. What I don't get is why so many people appear to think

it's better for closeted gay men to marry our straight daughters (the "traditional" marriage for gay men and straight men)
than for openly gay men to marry our gay sons.

[GoesTo11]

160. Wikipedia has lists of LGBT politicians

No one I recognized as having presidential candidate level stature, although some might have areas of expertise in an area where there's a cabinet position. Would a congress rep like Tammy Baldwin be willing to leave office for an undersecretary position?

[qwlauren35]

162. Yes, I'm sure there are. Here's a thought....

Push a gay think tank, or group of gay think tanks to bombard change.gov with names and resumes of people who are extremely, unquestionably qualified.... and happen to be gay.

It's one of those "Yes WE Can" things. If you don't think the transition team has looked hard enough for qualified gay candidates, give them a hand... and some names.