President Bush has choosen Scott Evertz to head the new Office of National AIDS Policy in the Bush Administration. Scott Evertz, leader of the Log Cabin Republicans in Wisconsin, is the first openly gay person nominated to an executive branch office by a Republican president.

The nomination of Scott Evertz has overt significance because it represents an opening up of the Republican Party to embrace homosexuals. However, the real significance of the nomination is creating the possibility of a homosexual swing vote. There is a large block of people in this country who are gay, who are not deeply committed to either party, who vote Republican, or who are Democrats who will vote for Republicans or who will vote for people like Jesse Ventura, radical centrists. When those people have an alternative to the Democratic Party, both parties will have to fight for the gay swing vote. As a swing vote block of Independents, our power becomes real.

Political dependence on the Democratic Party has had its consequences for gays. I believe the consequences of that dependence has not been particularly good for gays. It has meant that because gays are predominantly identified as Democrats, Republicans have typically had no use for us because they weren't getting our vote anyway; that moderates also had no use for us, because they were so turned off by some of the extreme rhetoric and by some of the extreme behavior that they saw from gays and lesbians. And perhaps worst of all, the Democrats used us as doormats, for the most part.

After eight years of the Clinton Administration, gays have basically noticed Clinton has not done a thing for them. What we do have, after eight years of Clinton, is two extremely anti-gay pieces of legislation on the books: the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I certainly think it is nice to be met with at the Whitehouse, and it is nice to have the odd appointment or two, the ambassadorship to Luxembourg. I'm all for that. But, this is not enough.

Still, the nomination of Scott Evertz is very welcome. The Human Rights Campaign, our largest gay political group, has praised this appointment. This is a step in the right direction. Opening up the Republican Party to embrace homosexuals is a step in the right direction so that gays do not have to be dependent upon the Democratic Party.

Forgive the cliched, slightly over-the-top comparison, but there were Jews who cooperated with the Nazis. And Africans who traded slaves.

Neither got anyone very far.

N2MN-
You really need to grow up immediately. Despite one's opposing views on particular political issues, the make a comparison between Republicans and Nazis is totally beyond the pale of sanity. I've been hearing these profoundly stupid comments for well over 20 years - like one of my professors in college who said the day after Reagan was elected that there would soon be Auschwitz-style death camps in the United States for homosexuals.
Well guess what, that never happened. Moreover making these ridiculous statements diminishes the real suffering of the real people who did die in the Holocaust - which makes you a sleazy pig!

Gee, talk about having a problem with opinions.....telling someone to grow up because you think they're wrong is an ineffective way to silence them.

I never drew a comparison between repubs and Nazis. You took it there, which is interesting because so many conservatives are very sensitive to that. Strike a nerve?
BTW, do you think the nazis were all bad? I don't. Germany was a highly developed culture (and still is) when that all happened. We are not above similar actions. Trust me.
Besides, comparisons are just that. However, if you look at the hallmarks of fascism, we have them in a big way. Overt racism, belligerent nationalism, contempt for the weak, fear of those who are different and government by business. It can sneak up on us, particularly in bad times.

My point was that complicity with those that are against you is not going to make you a winner in the game. Big fucking deal, he appoints a queer. It's like blacks really have no reason to celebrate Clarence Thomas.

You go on and wave your flag and think that this is the grandest place on earth. Some of us see a decline and are disturbed.

And go visit some of the conservative "mainstream" sites. the AFA for example.

Like it or not, those that do seek to destroy us are very ingrained in that party. Sorry.

But, hey, you won't have to pay as much taxes.

Quote..

"Besides, comparisons are just that. However, if you look at the hallmarks of fascism, we have them in a big way. Overt racism, belligerent nationalism,
contempt for the weak, fear of those who are different and government by
business. It can sneak up on us, particularly in bad times."

The above quote is from a post in this thread. I would like for the poster of the
above quote to show me an example of
"belligerent nationalism"....something that the average person would consider such, not the ones who find problems with any action that the US takes...

Additionally, the poster is right on one point...Overt racism certainly does exists and is very open these days. You can find it in music and on television and in talks by political officials.....and it is almost always directed against white people. We are
the only ones that it is safe to speak "against" without being accused of "racism". This is the double standard created by the political correctness nonsense which is so evident in the US today.

I disagree that all political correctness is nonsense. Some opinions are more grounded in fact than others, and some political viewpoints are more correct than others.

I remember all the eye-rolling during the early stages of political correctness. Many of the principles of p.c. didn't start out as the established way that we think about them. For example, grown women used to be called "girls". Feminist consciousness raising also put the concept of "sexual harassment" into the common language.

In polite company it is no longer acceptable to talk about "faggots" in a derogatory way. That didn't happen overnight. Things are politically incorrect before they become unacceptable.

You can't rely on the native good sense of ordinary people. Political correctness is a necessary part of consciousness raising.

Would you like to go back to being a faggot?

Since 1961, two-thirds of the states have repealed their sodomy laws. This reflects a growing concensus among most Americans that homosexuals are very much a part of our society.

Until the early 90s, the gay civil right movement had made little effort to reach out to Conservatives in the GOP who are not opposed to gay civil rights. Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken stands that seem calculated to offend them. If gay and lesbian liberation means a New Left-style assault on mainstream American values and institutions, like the regulated market system we now enjoy, then those would be sympathetic to the cause of gay civil rights will oppose us because they see no advantage in standing up for gays.

Opposing affirmative action and gun control, support for balanced budgets even at the expense of social programs, and favoring school choice in the form of vouchers all, like free markets and tax cuts and dislike of government regulation and lawsuit abuse, are consistent with gay equality. But, it is also incompatible with the views of one or another part of the progressive coalition to which the gay civil rights movement seems wedded.

If we can show the broad middle of America that gays do not oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues, we may win their trust and support. We can show them that equality for gays does not threaten the national concensus in favor of limited government, and even most traditional values.

None of this will persuade committed gay leftists to slough off their own political agenda, nor should it. Nor should it lead us to the conceit so common on the left that any position we take on these issues is the true "gay position".

Sad to have to chase approval so the majority will allow you to be assimilated.....

As for the other post, belligerent nationalism is all around us. Go to a foreign country and observe the americans. Loud obnoxious, pushy, arrogant.

AS for our government, look at the arrogance we showed the Chinese. Look at our marauding around the globe in search of trouble. See the cold war mentality taking over DC. Read the posts from white males like yourself going through testosterone overdoses, salivating over the chance to bomb China, Iraq, anything that moves. The way we force our culture and way of life on everyone.

National pride is a very close cousin to fascism. We have it and we have it bad.

I can't even respond to your white male whining about being picked on! Too fucking funny. Sounds like every white a guy I know who doesn't get a job. They always say it was because a woman or a black got it from "quotas". So spoiled that any time they don't get their way they can't believe it.
Just wait until you lose your majority. It'll be payback time.

Uh, where did you get the idea that the majority of Americans favor the politics you outlined, Ord?

Just a reminder: George Bush did not win a majority in the last election. The "majority" of Americans in fact do not support the conservative economic and political agendas you assume are the source of gay people´s alienation. We remain alienated principally on the basis of our sexual DESIRE. The repeal of the sodomy laws is a step toward our tolerance, not our acceptance in any broad way.

It has become a virtually predictable argument on these boards that the historic gay alliance with liberal causes is the source of our marginalization. This is an absurd fiction, considering that most people voted for Gore, that there is no historic precedent for the contention (consider blacks, women and their civil rights struggles).

Don´t buy this, folks. It´s just wishful thinking.

Liberals defend gays, and conservatives lock them up. Not surprisingly, gays gravitate to liberals.

It's a laughable notion that gays would be more acceptable if they weren't so liberal. I'd never heard this before! I was hoping to track this back to some reputable source, but I don't expect to find one.

Still, I'm not entirely surprised when conservative scholars advance absurd ideas. The stuff they come out with! A few years ago an Indian by the name of Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book that argued that racism is good for Blacks, and good for America.

LOL@D´Souza. Apparently you aren´t aware one of our esteemed board members frequently paraphrases this idiot.

There´s no "reputable source" for this argument about gay liberalism causing our alienation. It began in recent years with the folks who wrote "After the Ball," basically a screed about marketing an image. Then it was taken up by Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bauer.

NOne of these people maintain in their own lives the image they claim Americans favor -- yes, I have plenty of proof in that respect -- so what they really are advocating is re-closeting of aspects of gay "identity" that offend them. So, it´s okay, for example, for Bawer to be deep into S&M, but not okay for anyone to dress publicly in leather. And, even though the nature of our sex is what offends people, he thinks we can gain accepatance by hiding our desire´s public expression while assuming the smoothly-shaved, crewcutted face of white, male dominant culture. It´s that SNL skit with a twist: You may fuck boys up the butt, dahling, but you look mahvelous.

Stupid as hell.

So Bush appointed Evertz, leader of the Wisconsin Log Cabin Republicans, to head the Office of National AIDS Policy...

It would have made more sense for Reagan to make such an appointment. Or the president's dad.

Considering the current demographics of the health crisis, I'm sure that the only reason Evertz got the job is because he is absolutely the most knowlegeable person about AIDS in this country. No doubt he's the most capable man for the job.

Then again, perhaps he got it because to many people in the presently ruling party, having a Republican gay guy in charge of AIDS, is weirdly tolerable, seems logical & makes a kind of twisted sense...

It does seem a bit late though...

I wish us all well, no matter what our politics, as this whole thing unfolds. If you are involved in a political party, keep the folks in office aware of your concerns. If you are someone who prays, I'd highly recommend that as well.

There's a ready market for arguments that victims are responsible for their own victimization. But you have to be a member of the victimized group and have escaped the pathology that afflicts your peers.

Can you imagine how far Clarence Thomas would have gone if he hadn't been an ultraconservative? His whole career is premised on knocking people who say that blacks are held back by institutionalized racism. And didn't he make it all the way to the Supreme Court?

The Republicans earnestly strive to find people like that. Sometimes the people that turn up are too good to be true, like Linda Chavez. Chavez, nominated to be Secretary of Labor, shamelessly exploited an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, making her do housework and babysitting in exchange for small and irregular amounts of cash.

Dwight, why don't you at least attempt to
tell the truth or the whole story?

Your last post ended with a lie about
Linda Chavez. Linda Chavez was President
Bush's first choice for Sec of Labor. The
story as presented by the media was that
the illegal immigrant from Central America had no place to live as she left her home because her husband/boyfriend was very abusive. Mrs Chavez took her in and gave her a place to live. She provided this "illegal
immigrant" with medical care and also provided her food and clothing. In exchange
the "illegal immigrant" did some household chores. She WAS NOT as you almost describe kept in chains forced to work for her keep.

I realize that you are a parrot for the democrat party...but please at least don't
insult those of us who know what is happening.

"Republicans seek out these types of people". This is more of your democrat party mouthpiece activity.....Since you imagine
yourself to be "fair and balanced" in your
approach (which you clearly are not) why did
you not also include Zoe Baird and US Supreme Court Breyer (sp) in your group of "these types of people" since they all exploited or at least used people in an illegal manner to an equal or greater degree than did Linda Chavez......The reason you did not is because these two that I mentioned are Democrats and were nominated by Former (thank God) President Bill Clinton...

Has anyone seen the latest approval ratings from New York State on Senator H Clinton? They are very interesting.....and good news for the Republicans in general.