part three: barely twenty nine.

[mikeijames]

for me, it begins and ends with jealousy. it shouldn't. it's not healthy. if i'm not careful, it'll get me in trouble one day, but there it is. and i realize this remains one of the most backward ways of posting about my las vegas trips -- that is, not posting about it at all at this time -- but i've called off work sick because i just don't know how to rid myself of this headache or this feeling of discontent but why bother? in reality, i sort of called off because i basically had two straight days off from pier one and still did not clean my room and i'm doing that today so i'm being productive although i'm scared to death that i'm missing something major on my blackberry since i shut that off shortly after i called off. however. let's leave that aside.

it's clear to me the longer i'm back that travel both strengthens and strains relationships in a way that i've yet to get a handle on but find myself continuing to grapple with: however when i came back from vegas and got picked up by the exsomeone, apparently all of the feelings that i've kept at bay suddenly found themselves bearing their head. and while this immediately lead me to to my typical prescription of "meeting someone new," the weekend where i almost literally did nothing -- notice a pattern? -- made me realize that those small little nagging things that used to make me crazy, still had that ability absent my pernicious preoccupations of a new romance. well, on monday night, i decided that i should go to dinner with the stockbroker as the stockbroker does tend to make me feel good about myself relentlessly both in public and in private. from the near ass grab in our store to the way we carry on conversation, i decided that the stockbroker remains the perfect way to get my mind off things. why monday night? yeah. on monday, this got pushed forward when the exsomeone told me about the near obsession that has developed toward the full-time assitant manager at pier one and while i can see the attraction since i had the selfsame attraction when said manager worked at the pier one nearer downtown, the fact that it's used as a clear ploy to make me jealous really put me over the edge and made me really realize that though small and probably negligible, the feelings persisted. it didn't help that our conversation devolved into phone sex and ended with a plea for us to participate in a threesome, not on my part, by the way. on my first day back at work, i somehow finagled my way into making 95% of my sales goal which meant a decent pay out. and on tuesday, i sent a text message to the stockbroker to establish dinner plans, but i got no response, and after working every managable lead possible, wandering out of there sometime after six o' clock at night, i went to publix convinced that the stockbroker had traveled to denver or chicago or somewhere and didn't have access to a phone. after i get home from publix, the stockbroker shoots off this angry text message saying, "well i guess you couldn't wait until after six so have a good night. ok" so i call the stockbroker immediately and the stockbroker answers, "hello. who's this?" and i said, "oh you've lost my number after one week" and the stockbroker said, "no, i'm just being an asshole, why didn't you reply to my text message?" and i said, "i JUST got it" and the stockbroker said, "what about the one before" and i said, "this is the first one i got" and after we talked about that for far too long since my phone is really just a glorified maglite, i said that i didn't have dinner yet and we made plans to "go outback tonight."

well, the stockbroker picked me up after a half hour and we went to outback and i forgot just how much i missed the stockbroker until we saw each other again. further, i forgot how attractive i find the stockbroker within the confines of my place and the world i've built for myself. at outback, we discussed my las vegas trip over cocktails and stuffed fish and eventually -- after an interesting run in with the stockbroker's friend who i know from pier one and who made me feel SO PROUD to be seen with the stockbroker as that friend's date truly disappointed -- came back to my place and after a few more glasses of wine and a shot of vodka, we had sex for the first time in several months. the headlines from this date circled around the fact that the stockbroker will no longer move to denver, the stockbroker will probably purchase that sad house that i don't particularly like, the stockbroker's friend perhaps had a leather couch for my place (that fell through subsequently), and yeah, i think that's it. i worked on wednesday and thursday in an almost empty store and on friday i went to cafe alma for "first class fridays" which has gotten billed as a even for young black professionals, but my high school friend -- who got sworn onto the bar right before my trip -- hijacked the event and made it her birthay party which was fine except for the seventy dollars worth of champagne i wound up consuming as a result. i got a ride home from my pier one friends who made a cameo appearance at the very end. they saw my apartment which was gratifying.

on saturday, i did almost nothing besides work for four hours that night. on sunday, i did nothing all day, and then went over to the exsomeone's although literally nothing happened besides watching the golden globes and then departing so i could see the new desperate housewives and brothers and sisters. happy that "mad men" won again.

what else? this weekend, i did nothing. we've been over that. OH. diane feinstein, the senate, and the cabinet. one of my biggest arguments about the ascendency of the barack obama message over the hillary clinton message came in the realization that while talking about 'change' in an abstract sense rouses crowds, it doesn't actually mean anything if it's not put into practice in a meaningful way. further, how can one put such change into practice without the willing cooperation of the political machine in washington -- and in the state capitols across this countyr -- if they decide that they do not want that radical of a change? well, we're seeing that at work at the moment: diane feinstein, she of cameo appearance in the milk role, actually flexed her senatorial muscles and single-handedly not only put barack obama back in his place as leader of a coequal branch, but reasserted states rights, and showed that she will not lay down and let her interests -- nor experience -- get overlooked. when barack obama nominated leon panetta to the cia post, she not only expressed her discomfort, but she created another fire by breaking the democrats' rank-and-file rejection of burris from illinois. the result? now, burris will sit in the senate and she's capitulated on panetta and she's seen as one of the leaders in the senate in just one week. and on a week when brothers and sisters even talked about the governorship of california, we know that it's on her mind. the democrats have an almost fail-proof plan to create a sustained majority: a path to citizenship for undocumented workers in our country. if they get those millions their citizenship, they will surely vote democratically for their lifetimes. now, i do believe we'll see a split in the party the way it has been in the past with one flank of the democrats leaning more conservatively on social issues and another flank of the democrats leaning more conservatively on other idealogical issues like trade, spending, foreign policy, and the like.

it's just funny that although i'm still miffed at the lack of true diversity in the cabinet, that we're seeing the power plays in washington occur as if any other president got nominated. i just hope that it works out for the best. now, i've downed a nyquil so that i can get sleep to go to work tomorrow like i shoul have today, but i mean, sometimes i've got to do what i've got to do. i promise to update on my vegas trip very soon.

Here is your single's love horoscope
for Monday, January 12:

Forget about spending too much time online or on the phone. It's a great day to do something for yourself. Go on a cold-weather hike, get your nails done or just take a long nap. Enjoy a few hours alone -- it's the perfect opportunity to rest and regroup.

NATIONAL | washingtonblade.com

New grassroots push for a gay Cabinet member
Some see fresh opportunity after Richardson’s abrupt nomination exit

By CHRIS JOHNSON
Jan. 09, 2009

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s decision to quit his nomination as commerce secretary has prompted activist groups to ask President-elect Barack Obama to name an openly gay official to the post.

The vacancy, announced earlier this week, gives Obama an opportunity to nominate a gay person to his Cabinet, something that transition officials have heavily hinted would happen in private meetings with gay rights activists. Some of those activists publicly expressed their disappointment and frustration when Obama failed to include a gay nominee after making his final Cabinet picks.

Richardson, who initially competed against Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination but later endorsed him, withdrew as the commerce secretary nominee amidst a federal investigation into how his political donors landed a transportation contract in New Mexico.

According to the Associated Press, a grand jury is looking into possible dealings between CDR Financial Products, a national capital markets group, and someone in a position to push contracts through New Mexico’s state government.

CDR was paid a total of $1.48 million in 2004 and 2005 for work on a transportation program, the AP reported. Meanwhile, the company and its chief executive, David Rubin, reportedly contributed at least $110,000 to Richardson’s political committees.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Monday that Richardson’s withdrawal means Obama “is presented with yet another opportunity to make good on his promise of equality for all LGBT people.”

Denis Dison, spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said his organization and the Presidential Appointments Project continue to encourage Obama to nominate an openly gay person for his Cabinet and that the new vacancy “presents another opportunity for them to look at an LGBT applicant.”

Dison said Fred Hochberg, a gay man who previously was under consideration to head the Small Business Administration, is “out there today as the best chance the LGBT community” has for a nominee as commerce secretary.

“And the good thing is, he is qualified,” Dison said. “If you look at his background and look at his role in business and in government, you know it’s somebody who could step into that role.”

Dison said he has no “inside knowledge” regarding whom Obama is considering for commerce secretary or what the chances are for a gay person to fill the position.

Hochberg serves on the Obama transition team and declined to comment for this article. He served as deputy and acting administrator of the SBA under President Clinton and until recently was the dean of Milano, the New School for Management & Urban Policy in New York.

HRC spokesperson Brad Luna told the Blade last month that Hochberg is a “major donor” to HRC, a former board co-chair, an emeritus member of the board and a member of HRC’s public policy committee.

A grassroots effort has emerged to encourage Obama to select Hochberg as commerce secretary. Paul Sousa, 21, a student at Northeastern University in Boston, established the online organization Equal Rep, which encourages those who want to see a gay person in Obama’s Cabinet to call or e-mail the transition team every day until a decision on an announcement has been made for the commerce secretary nomination, or until Jan. 19, the eve of Inauguration Day.

“We’re not pushing his name just because he’s gay,” Sousa said. “We’re pushing his name because he’s highly qualified and the fact that he’s openly gay is kind of icing on the cake there.”

Equal Rep previously led two three-day campaigns to encourage Obama to select other openly gay people for leadership positions. One campaign sought to get the president-elect to nominate Mary Beth Maxwell, a lesbian and founding executive director of American Rights at Work, for labor secretary. Obama last month chose U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) for the role.

Another campaign encouraged Obama to nominate as Navy secretary William White, a gay man and chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, a naval museum. A nominee for that position was not announced before Blade deadline.

Sousa said Obama transition team phone operators told him “they’ve been getting a ton of calls” for Equal Rep’s previous campaigns and for its campaign to encourage Obama to nominate Hochberg as commerce secretary.

The Obama transition team declined to comment this week on possible appointments for commerce secretary.

In a separate development, Obama on Monday announced that an openly gay man would serve on his staff as director of the White House Office of Management & Administration.

Brad Kiley, the appointee, is director of operations for the Obama transition team and an official for the Center for American Progress think tank.

The head of the White House Office of Management & Admin-istration is charged with overseeing the operations of the White House in matters such as salaries, office space and budgeting. It is not a Cabinet-level position.

Kiley served as deputy assistant to the president for management and administration under President Clinton, according to the Center for American Progress web site.

He also was director of finance and administration for the 1996 Democratic National Convention and has held leadership positions at NARAL, a pro-choice organization, and the International AIDS Trust, the web site says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2009 The Washington Blade | A Window Media Publication

###

January 14, 2009
Locked in the Cabinet
Demands that Obama appoint a gay cabinet member seem to come with a cost -- ignoring that person's qualifications just to get a gay on Obama's team.
By James Kirchick

When the rumor first surfaced that President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team was strongly considering union activist Mary Beth Maxwell for secretary of Labor, gay ears perked up. Gay news outlets across the country and around the world covered the story with marked interest. Gay blogs covered every hint and rumor about the selection process. The Human Rights Campaign, which had already endorsed Rep. Linda Sanchez for the job, announced that it would simultaneously endorse Maxwell. Why such fascination? Maxwell, you see, is a lesbian, which is apparently a very important qualification when it comes to the study of ergonomics, implementation of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, and compliance with the Office of Labor-Management Standards.

My reaction to the news that Maxwell was under serious consideration was less enthusiastic. Whereas the gay press focused almost entirely on Maxwell’s attraction to women, the mainstream media was more interested in her ardent support for a deceptively titled bill called the Employee Free Choice Act. Under current labor law, if a union wishes to organize a workplace, it must first win the consent of a simple majority of workers who vote the same way the rest of Americans do biennially on the first Tuesday of November -- by secret ballot.

The Employee Free Choice Act would change this. Instead, all a union would need to secure the right of representation is collect cards signed by a bare majority of employees. Armed with a list of workers' names, union organizers would know who has -- and who has not -- publicly indicated their support for the union. Such a system clearly lends itself to abuse, as union bosses can pressure and intimidate workers into supporting unionization. Maxwell, a longtime union activist, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the measure.

That Maxwell is sexually attracted to women is all well and good, but her support for the Employee Free Choice Act ought to be more significant. And while it would be nice to have an openly gay cabinet secretary, I’d rather have a straight one who doesn’t support this legislation -- barring that, anyone who isn’t as zealous a proponent of it as Maxwell. Should this opposition to the appointment of an openly gay person -- opposition based not a whit on said person’s sexuality but rather my sincere beliefs about the damage she could inflict upon the nation’s economy -- make me a pariah among gays?

Ultimately, Obama passed over Maxwell in favor of Rep. Hilda Solis, who is no less devoted to the Employee Free Choice Act. But in the weeks since this decision was made, gays have grown more vocal in their demand that someone, anyone, gay get a high-level cabinet appointment.

Attention soon turned to Fred Hochberg, a gay man who served in the Small Business Administration under President Clinton, whom gay activists favored for Commerce secretary after the scandal-plagued Bill Richardson withdrew himself from consideration.

“We’re not pushing his name just because he’s gay,” insisted Phil Sousa, the creator of the website EqualRep, which is pressuring the Obama administration into appointing the first openly gay cabinet secretary. “We’re pushing his name because he’s highly qualified and the fact that he’s openly gay is kind of icing on the cake there.”

In other words, they’re pushing Hochberg because he’s gay. Were he not, they wouldn’t be pushing him.

While it’s important to have openly gay public figures as advocates for equality, role models for the young, and living proof that we are not the depraved perverts our adversaries portray us as, the near-singular focus on obtaining an openly gay cabinet nominee comes at the expense of more important gay rights causes. It essentializes gay people down to their sexual preference.

Inaugurated in 1993 after the nostrums of identity politics had successfully pervaded the media, universities, and popular culture, Bill Clinton was the first president to appoint cabinet secretaries under the rubric of a racial and gender spoils system. Soon after his election, for instance, it was revealed that Clinton would consider only women for the job of attorney general. This poisoned the opening months of his presidency, as insufficient vetting resulted in the scotching of several nominees over a variety of damaging revelations.

It’s understandable that gay activists would want openly gay people in high levels of government, and I stand with them. But there’s something a bit pathetic in the way gay organizations and the gay media have fixated on the appointment of openly gay individuals. By focusing so heavily on the sexual orientations of the people under consideration, it seems like we’re fighting for scraps off the table of the incoming Obama administration. We’re looking for a singular trophy when we ought to be fighting for a turkey in every pot, and it reeks of desperation.

According to a recent Advocate.com report by Kerry Eleveld, the leaders of the nation’s major gay organizations spent the “bulk of a two-hour meeting” with transition officials last month pressing for the appointment of an openly gay cabinet secretary. Wouldn’t their time have been better spent talking about how to pass pro-gay legislation in the upcoming congressional term?

While a cabinet appointment would be a breakthrough, it’s hardly the impressive accomplishment that gay groups are portraying it as. Openly gay elected officials like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin had to fight their way up the congressional food chain to earn national prominence; they didn’t get their jobs thanks to a well-moneyed gay lobby pressuring for their selection.

Indeed, a cabinet appointment is not always a sign of merit; it’s often as much, if not more, a result of political favors, a desire to please an important political constituency or a mixture of the two.

But at this point, thanks to the blatant way gay rights groups have gone about campaigning for it, such a selection would be perceived as cynical tokenism. And given all the public pressure directed at Obama to appoint a gay person to a high-profile job, the appointee would automatically be viewed as the recipient of preferential treatment. With so much attention devoted to that appointee's sexuality -- as opposed to their actual qualifications -- the first openly gay cabinet secretary would be robbed of their individuality, and their accomplishments in office would come second to their sexual orientation.

Like everyone else, gays should be judged by their abilities. This quest for homosexual affirmative action is a throwback to the mau-mauing of women’s and ethnic groups during the Clinton administration. As with racial and gender preferences, when important positions are “set aside” for a certain class rather than the most qualified individuals, everyone loses out, not least of which the intended beneficiaries. The obsessive focus on openly gay cabinet appointees risks further ghettoization of gays, as we are compelled to “support” whatever gay figure is foisted upon us by gay organizations irrespective of whether or not we agree with that person’s political views.

Gay people have every right to lobby the government to address their concerns. But by demanding that Obama prioritize sexual orientation in the hiring of employees, we diminish ourselves, not just collectively but as individuals.

###

Obama Brings in a Gay! Fred Hochberg Tapped for Import-Export Role
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/obama_brings_in_a_gay_fred_hoc.html?mid=daily-intel--20090109
1/9/09 at 1:30 PM

Reports say that Obama will tap Fred Hochberg, a former deputy of the Small Business Administration under Bill Clinton, as the chair of the Import-Export bank. Hochberg was a longtime Hillary supporter, but when Obama secured the nomination, Hochberg went on to bundle over $100,000 for the president-elect - now making him the first major fund-raiser to be given a post. Hochberg (who, colorfully, is heir to the Lillian Vernon catalogue business) currently serves as the dean of the New School's Milano School of Management. He's also a New York gay, the best kind! He'll be the highest-ranking openly gay member of Obama's administration. He's been in the middling ranks of the Out Magazine Power 50 for a couple of years, but now he'll at least be up near Anderson Cooper and Perez Hilton!

Update: Our political czar Dan Amira points out to us that we should not ignore perfectly shiny gayness that Nancy Sutley, the future head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is already bringing to the Obama administration. True, true, but she is from Los Angeles, and we don't really know any of that crowd.

By: Chris Rovzar

###

December 11, 2008
Obama to Name Out L.A. Deputy Mayor to Environmental Post

The information comes on the heels of an Advocate.com story Tuesday about the lack of openly gay people in President-elect Obama's inner circle.
A Democratic aide has confirmed to The Advocate that President-elect Obama will be naming Los Angeles deputy mayor Nancy Sutley, who is gay, as a senior member of his environmental team, as reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Sutley, who currently serves as deputy mayor of energy and the environment, will be named chairwoman of the Council of Environmental Quality, which helps develop environmental policy and advises the White House on such matters.

The leaked announcement comes at a time when gay Democrats have been beginning to express concerns over the absence of LGBT representation in President-elect Obama's senior-level appointees. Sutley originally supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries and was a member of her Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Steering Committee in California.

But following the election, Obama asked her to join a team that is reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency. She will become the first out person named to a prominent position in the administration by President-elect Obama.

Nancy Sutley has a rich background in environmental public policy at both the federal and state levels, having served on the California State Water Resources Control Board, as energy adviser to Gov. Gray Davis, and as the deputy secretary for policy and intergovernmental relations within the California Environmental Protection Agency. As an appointee to the EPA, she helped shape water and air pollution policy, lobbied congressional leadership, and formulated budget and legislative priorities.

Denis Dison of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund said he was pleased to see an LGBT appointee added to Obama's roster but still has his sights set on a higher prize.

"I think the community is still hoping that we will see an openly LGBT cabinet secretary," Dison said. "There are still names out there that we would like to see appointed, like John Berry."

Berry, who is director of the Smithsonian National Zoo and former executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, is reportedly under consideration for secretary of the Interior, the governmental steward of all U.S. public land. The Victory Fund's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute has been collecting and vetting LGBT candidates who are qualified to serve in the administration through its Presidential Appointments Project. (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)

###

January 06, 2009
Bradley Kiley Named Director of the Office of Management and Administration

President-elect Barack Obama on Monday named Bradley Kiley, who is gay, as director of the Office of Management and Administration.

Kiley has been serving as director of Operations for the Obama-Biden Transition Project and previously served as vice president of finance and operations at the Center for American Progress.

"He's an incredibly sharp and strategic manager when it comes to finance, operations, administration and overall management," says Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president of external affairs at the center, where she has worked with Kiley. "The Center for American Progress and the Action Fund is an incredibly complex entity with numerous financial moving parts -- money, donors, tax law, IRS reporting requirements -- and his ability to navigate through those complex financial waters is beyond reproach."

Stachelberg says Kiley has been a terrific colleague with a great sense of humor and an uncanny ability to juggle multiple tasks at once. While he was contending with his own heavy workload, Stachelberg remembers calling him up a number of times with urgent budget requests for potential donors.

"Literally within hours, he had that budget done, I sent it off to the donor, and we were able to secure a grant," she says. "His ability to be in the weeds and yet see the larger picture is something essential that he brings to the White House operations."

Kiley served as deputy assistant to the president for management and administration at the White House under President Bill Clinton. He was responsible for all aspects of White House operations, including the travel office, the visitors office, and White House administration, which included finance, human resources, and facilities.

Kiley has also held posts at the Democratic National Committee, where he served as director of finance and administration for the 1996 Democratic National Convention, NARAL, and the International AIDS Trust. (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)

###

January 13, 2009
Gay Man to Direct the Office of Personnel Management

John Berry will be named director of the Office of Personnel Management by President-elect Barack Obama, according to The Washington Post. Berry served as assistant secretary of the Interior during the Clinton administration and has been director of the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park since 2005.

LGBT leaders had hoped Berry would be tapped as secretary of the Interior, but D.C. insiders say his duties at the Office of Personnel Management will directly affect LGBT people because it has jurisdiction over the treatment of millions of federal employees.

“OPM is the federal government’s human resources department," said Denis Dison, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which has been presenting qualified LGBT candidates to the Obama transition team. "Its director is the president’s top adviser on personnel matters. Having an out gay man in that position is more than symbolic, it’s a statement about how important workplace equality is to this president.”

The office is generally responsible for recruiting job applicants, filling vacancies at federal agencies, developing performance review processes, administering benefits, and overseeing nondiscrimination policies.

Though Beltway LGBT leaders had been pushing for an openly gay cabinet appointee, they were enthusiastic about Berry's appointment and said it was the most prominent position to be held by an openly gay person in the federal government. “The selection of John Berry to head the Office of Personnel Management, making him the highest-ranking openly gay official ever, is a meaningful step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese.

Before becoming director of the National Zoological Park, Berry was executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Association from 2000 to 2005. He is also no stranger to Capitol Hill, having served as legislative director for Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, from 1985 until 1994. (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)

###

GLLI: Sixteen openly gay presidential appointees thus far
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/01/26/glli-sixteen-openly-gay-presidential-appointees-thus-far/

So far, sixteen lesbian and gay individuals have received appointments from President Barack Obama. Many of these people applied for their positions through the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute’s Presidential Appointments Project.

The appointees are:

- Anthony Bernal - Scheduler, Office of Dr. Jill Biden
- John Berry - Director-Designate, Office of Personnel Management
- Brian Bond - Deputy Director, White House Office of Public Liaison
- Ebs Burnough - Deputy Scheduler, Office of the First Lady
- Michael Camunez - Domestic Policy Cluster Head, Presidential Personnel
- Brook Colangelo - Chief Information Officer, White House Office of Administration
- Brad Kiley - Director, White House Office of Management and Administration
- Fred Hochberg - Director-Designate, U.S. Export-Import Bank
- Karine Jean-Pierre - White House Liaison, U.S. Department of Labor
- David Medina - Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the First Lady
- Dave Noble - White House Liaison, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Mark Perriello - Director of Priority Placement, Presidential Personnel
- Nancy Sutley - White House Council on Environmental Quality
- Moe Vela - Director of Operations, Office of the Vice President
- Kei Koizumi - Assistant Director for Federal Research and Development, Office of Science and Technology Policy
- Alison Nathan - White House Counsels Office

Posted at 11:54 am

###

Obama appoints gay fundraiser to White House role

Bernard to be liaison for National Endowment for the Humanities
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Feb 18, 3:48 PM

President Obama has appointed a gay man who helped raise funds for his presidential campaign to a role in the White House, according to a Democratic source.

Jeremy Bernard was appointed as White House liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities this week, the source said. Bernard’s new role means he’ll serve as the primary point person between the White House and NEH, a government agency that provides grants to research and programs in the humanities.

Bernard worked with his partner, Rufus Gifford, to raise millions of dollars through their company, B&G Associates, for Obama’s campaign in California. Last month, Gifford was tapped to become the new finance director for the Democratic National Committee.

Bernard, a Los Angeles resident, also helped in fundraising efforts for freshman U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

A superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August, Bernard was pledged to Obama.

Bernard worked for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and in 1999, then-President Clinton appointed Bernard to serve on a presidential advisory committee at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Bernard and Gifford were honored last year by Out magazine, which ranked the couple at No. 32 on its annual list of the “50 most influential gays.”

Bernard could not be immediately reached for comment.

###

|| Print this article: News ||
February 26, 2009
Gay Man Tapped To Lead National AIDS Office

The White House announced Thursday that Jeffrey S. Crowley will be the Director of Office of National AIDS Policy. Crowley is a Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown’s Health Policy Institute.

The White House announced Thursday that Jeffrey S. Crowley will be the Director of Office of National AIDS Policy.

Crowley, a Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute, will coordinate the federal government’s efforts on HIV/AIDS policy and will help guide the administration’s development of disability policies, according to a release.

“Jeffrey Crowley brings the experience and expertise that will help our nation address the ongoing HIV/AIDS crisis and help my administration develop policies that will serve Americans with disabilities,” President Barack Obama said in a press statement. “In both of these key areas, we continue to face serious challenges and we must take bold steps to meet them. I look forward to Jeffrey’s leadership on these critical issues.”

The Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) is tasked with coordinating the government's efforts to reduce the number of HIV infections across the United States. During the 2008 election, President Obama pledged to develop a national AIDS strategy -- a job which will now be spearheaded by the Office of National AIDS Policy. ONAP also coordinates with international bodies in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The press release praised Crowley's 14 years of experience with working to improve access to health and social services for people living with HIV/AIDS, people with physical and mental disabilities, low-income individuals, and other vulnerable populations.

Crowley previously served as the deputy executive director for programs at the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA). While at NAPWA, he helped implement key initiatives such as the National HIV Testing Day Campaign and the Ryan White National Youth Conference.

Crowley received his Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University's School of Hygiene and Public Health, and his Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry from Kalamazoo College. He also served in the United States Peace Corps as a high school science teacher at the Nsongweni High School in Swaziland.

###

Elections Home

Obama Apologizes to Feinstein Over Panetta Snub
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/06/obama-apologies-feinstein-panetta-snub/

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden apologized Tuesday to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee for not consulting her about the nomination of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden apologized Tuesday to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for failing to consult her about appointing Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Obama and Biden called Feinstein one day after her spokesman said the California senator did not receive a phone call about Panetta from anyone in the Obama camp and learned about the decision to nominate him from news reports. Feinstein's committee would be in charge of holding Panetta's confirmation hearing.

"I have been contacted by both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, and they have explained to me the reasons why they believe Leon Panetta is the best candidate for CIA director," she said in a written statement.

"I look forward to speaking with Mr. Panetta about the critical issues facing the intelligence community and his plans to address them," she added.

Feinstein told Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol Hill, that Obama and Biden "apologized profusely" for not calling her and that she has no hard feelings.

"I've been around a long time I know this happens," she said.

Biden, who previously served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday called it a "mistake" to exclude Feinstein in discussions on a CIA pick.

"I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way: I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress," he said. "I think it was just a mistake."

Feinstein's dance with the Obama team is a turnaround from a day earlier, when she had expressed concern about the nomination, saying that she wanted an intelligence professional to lead the agency. Panetta is an ex-congressman who served as former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff.

At a budget meeting on Tuesday, Obama declined to make a formal announcement about Panetta but said that he has the "utmost respect for him" and that Panetta "brings great management skill" and has "impeccable integrity."

Other Democrats were also throwing their support behind Panetta.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Panetta brings fresh leadership to the intelligence community.

"Leon Panetta has a long and distinguished career in public service and there are few people of whom I have a higher opinion," he said in a written statement.

"He has been a strong voice opposing the interrogation practices authorized by the Bush administration and he is well-equipped to restore our national security, which has been undermined by the current administration's policies," he added.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-TX, called the Panetta pick "sensible and said that he was "time-tested" and "highly qualified.

"His ability to build coalitions and work across all elements of government will make him a good partner for the Director of National Intelligence," he said in a written statement.

Separately, Feinstein praised Obama's selection of Adm. Dennis Blair to be director of National Intelligence.

"I intend to have the Senate Intelligence Committee move quickly to get Admiral Blair confirmed, but we will do our due diligence in reviewing his record and views during open hearings," she said.

###

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-burris7-2009jan07,0,3615071.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Feinstein says Burris should be seated

He is barred from the Senate floor, but the powerful California senator says the status of the embattled Illinois governor who appointed him is moot.

By Mike Dorning

10:29 PM PST, January 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington - Roland Burris gained a powerful ally in his bid to replace President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday when Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California urged the Senate to seat him, arguing that his appointment was lawful.

Her stance could strengthen Burris' position as he meets with Senate leaders today.

Burris, appointed by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, came to the Capitol to be sworn in with other senators Tuesday but was barred from the Senate floor.

Democratic leaders contend they have the right to reject him because the Illinois secretary of state has refused to sign his paperwork.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and others say the appointment is tainted because Blagojevich faces federal corruption charges, which include trying to sell the seat.

But Feinstein, outgoing chairwoman of the committee that judges senators' credentials, said Blagojevich's status was beside the point.

"If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," she told reporters in a Capitol hallway. "Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been [state] attorney general, he has been [state comptroller], and he is very well respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled."

Her stance was a shift from last month, when 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus -- including Feinstein -- warned Blagojevich that if he attempted to fill the seat, his choice would be rejected.

But Blagojevich's appointment of Burris undermined Democrats' unity. Some members of Congress now contend that Reid should not stand in the door of the Senate to bar Burris -- a reference to Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace's conduct during the desegregation of a state university in 1963.

But Tuesday was mostly a day of political theater. Burris attracted more attention than anyone who actually took the oath of office.

Throngs of reporters and camera crews waited in the rain for him to arrive and, like paparazzi, documented his every step. Burris was escorted by the Senate sergeant-at-arms, former Illinois State Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer.

The media contingent filled a hallway outside a Capitol office while Senate officials rejected Burris' credentials behind closed doors. As Burris left the building, a Senate employee walked beside him with a golf umbrella to shield him from the rain. Police cleared a path through the media scrum, and Burris held a news conference at a park across the street.

"My name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the state of Illinois," he declared, with the Capitol dome in the background. "I was advised that my credentials were not in order."

Burris is to meet with Reid and Assistant Majority Leader Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) today. Reid hinted Sunday that his opposition was not absolute. "I'm an old trial lawyer," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "There's always room to negotiate."

Aside from the involvement of Blagojevich, another concern is that Burris could be a weak candidate for election in 2010.

One idea floated by some Democratic officials is that Burris might be seated if he agreed not to run.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, Burris' attorneys moved to amend his state lawsuit to force Secretary of State Jesse White to co-sign Burris' appointment.

"We don't believe the people of Illinois elected Jesse White to be the de facto governor," said Burris attorney Timothy Wright.

Burris' legal team is preparing a federal lawsuit over the Senate seat too, invoking the Supreme Court's 1969 decision that the House could not exclude Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (D-N.Y.).

mdorning@tribune.com

Tribune reporter Monique Garcia contributed to this report from Chicago.

###

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Jan. 12, 2009 - 5:45 a.m.

Feinstein’s Actions on Blagojevich Appointee Could Help Her Later
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

For all the political losers in the Roland W. Burris imbroglio, there is at least one clear winner: California Sen. Dianne Feinstein .

Feinstein seized a rare double-barreled opportunity to reach out to African Americans and bolster the strength of state executives in a single act by offering her support for Burris, whose appointment to the Senate has been held in limbo by Democratic leaders because it was made by Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich , who was impeached on Jan. 9 after being arrested in a federal corruption probe last month.

“Does [Blagojevich’s arrest] affect his appointment power? The answer is no,” Feinstein said Jan. 6 in arguing that the Senate should not block Burris. “It affects gubernatorial appointments all over America.”

Feinstein hinged her argument for Burris on the legal authority of a governor to fill the Senate vacancy - a power she would use to choose her own successor should she run and win the gubernatorial race.

The praise that followed for the three-term senator was noteworthy.

It included plaudits from African American officials who previously had lambasted her for not being sensitive to their political concerns, when she provided the pivotal committee vote to advance the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Like many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which unanimously endorsed the Burris appointment, Feinstein did not brooch the issue of race in making her argument.

But the overtones have been loud ever since Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., a former Black Panther, dared Senate leaders - in explicitly racial terms _ to bar Burris from the chamber.

“There are no African Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. Senator who is sitting right now, would want to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the U.S. Senate,” Rush said at the press conference at which Burris’ appointment was announced in late December.

While political observers across the country have marveled at the political contortions of Democratic leaders who first vowed to block Burris from entering the chamber and have since signaled a willingness to relent, Feinstein deftly pressed a pro-Burris position that would quickly become the consensus view on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif., a senior member of the Black Caucus, refused to connect Feinstein’s stance on Burris to any past episodes with black leaders or political ambitions.

“ Dianne Feinstein took a principled position on a legal issue,” Waters insisted.

But in August of 2007, Waters threatened to exact political retribution against Feinstein after Feinstein cast a Judiciary Committee vote for Southwick, who had drawn the ire of black lawmakers for his role in the reinstatement of a social worker who had been fired for using a racial epithet.

Black Caucus members said at the time that Feinstein had added insult to injury by declining to return their calls on the Southwick matter.

“If, in fact, Sen. Dianne Feinstein continues to relate to this Caucus in the way she’s been doing ... We will have no alternative but to not only share the information but to fight against her coming back to the United States Senate,” Waters said then.

Feinstein has enjoyed support from African American voters at the polls, but the Southwick nomination is not the only time she has found herself at odds with black political leaders.

Some have taken exception to her effort to combat gangs by expanding eligibility for the death penalty to members of gangs that have killed people, even if the gang member in question did not participate in the specific crime.

Waters could cause much more grief for Feinstein in a gubernatorial primary than in a Senate run.

“At the time, in the context of re-election to the Senate, Maxine’s threat seemed empty and served to make her look weak. Not so true if the question is a run for governor,” said a Democratic aide familiar with California politics.

Feinstein is unlikely to draw primary opposition if she runs for re-election, and African Americans, who constitute a relatively small share of California’s population - about 7 percent - and vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats, have more influence in primaries.

It is not clear whether Feinstein intends to turn her longtime flirtation with a gubernatorial bid into a campaign, but some observers think her concern with preserving the authority of state executives to make Senate appointments might be a hint in that direction.

If Feinstein were to run and win, she would be in the position of appointing her own successor - a fitting twist given that Feinstein first arrived in the Senate in 1992 by beating John Seymour, the man Gov. Pete Wilson appointed to take his own Senate seat upon becoming governor.

Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran said the decision to back Burris was not made of politics but substance.

“Her support is not driven by anything other than her analysis of the particular situation,” Duran said in an e-mail.

Several Democrats who are familiar with Feinstein’s political history offered similar assessments, doubting that she made a connection between Southwick and Burris or between Burris and a gubernatorial run.

“I don’t necessarily think Feinstein works that way,” said Alice A. Huffman, the president of the California State Conference of the NAACP.

Huffman noted that Feinstein has won the backing of African American voters in her previous Senate bids but conceded that the dynamics of a primary could be different.

The discussion may well be moot, according to Huffman.

“I don’t think she’s running for governor.”

Former Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick , D-Mich., declined to speculate on Feinstein’s motives but praised the decision to back Burris and made clear that it was welcome among black lawmakers.

“She did right in saying he should be seated,” Kilpatrick said. “We appreciate that.”

CQ © 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500

###

Blessed Are the Gatekeepers
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/1/6/233252/4014
by Charles Lemos, Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:32:52 PM EST

Blessed are the gatekeepers, for theirs is the power to getting things done.

If President-elect Obama thought that changing the way Washington works was going to be a breeze, he got his first lesson in comeuppance with his selection of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. His mistake wasn't the choice per se but rather not checking with the gatekeepers, the Washington power brokers pertinent to this decision. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the incoming chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was surprised by the pick and complained that she wasn't consulted. That's one gatekeeper with ruffled feathers. Another gatekeeper not reckoned with, and therefore not terribly amused, was the outgoing chairperson Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Through an aide, the long-serving member of the Intelligence Committee let it be known that while he "has tremendous respect for Leon Panetta" the aide said that Senator Rockefeller "believes the CIA director should go to someone who has significant intelligence experience and someone from outside the political world of Washington DC."

Had these gatekeepers been consulted prior to announcing the selection, I suspect their tone would have been more conciliatory and supportive. Certainly, we would have fewer ruffled feathers.

Even Senator 'for two more weeks' Joe Biden conceded it was a "mistake" in not consulting the Senate's gatekeepers before tapping Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

"I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way," he told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress."

Yup. It's always good to talk to those blessed gatekeepers. In doing so, President Obama will likely get his way more often than not but ruffle their features by pulling surprises seems like a recipe for not getting things accomplished. Blessed are the gatekeepers, for in their hands is the power of the gavel. Some aspects of Washington, it seems, will never change.

###

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
29 - Gay Marriage at the Ballot Box

Since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through court action in 2003, 26 states have passed voter-approved constitutional bans on gay marriage, bringing the total number of states with voter-approved bans to 29. Prior to 2003, only Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting the practice. Only Arizona, in 2006, has rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage at the ballot box. However, like California and Florida, Arizona passed a ban this year. In addition to these constitutional amendments, legislatures in 42 states have passed laws limiting the legal definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

###

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

###

Sunday, January 4, 2009
Gay marriage backers target New England
Valerie Richardson

Two New England states have already legalized same-sex marriage, and a Boston-based advocacy group wants to see the other four join them.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, known as GLAD, has launched a first-of-its-kind regional campaign aimed at winning approval for same-sex marriage in the six-state New England region by 2012.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts, a result of court decisions in cases brought by GLAD lawyers. The 2003 Massachusetts decision was the first in the nation, while the Connecticut ruling went into effect Nov. 12.

"We can make New England a marriage-equality zone by strategically combining existing legal, electoral and on-the-ground know-how to fast-track marriage in every New England state," GLAD Executive Director Lee Swislow said.

"By 2012, we not only can have marriage equality throughout New England, we can have a road map for the rest of the country," she said.

But proponents of traditional marriage say the organization may be setting itself up for defeat. Even in liberal New England, persuading four more states to sign off on same-sex marriage won't be a slam dunk, especially if it involves moving through the state legislatures, said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.

"I'm skeptical that they'll be able to win same-sex marriage in all six states by 2012. Public opinion continues to be much more resistant than homosexual activists are willing to admit," Mr. Sprigg said. "We saw that in California with Proposition 8."

Indeed, the gay-marriage movement is still smarting from its stinging defeat in November, when California voters passed Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that overturned a state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

That wasn't the impetus behind Six by Twelve. The campaign is pegged to the fifth anniversary of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts case. But advocates did say it was important to remain active in Proposition 8's aftermath.

"The timing [after Proposition 8] wasn't part of the plan, because the plan for Six by Twelve preceded Proposition 8. But I can see how folks would get comfort from this after what happened in California," said Alison Cashin, GLAD's manager of public education. "It's a big defeat, but California is one state."

California joined Florida and Arizona in approving ballot measures in November, bringing the number of states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their constitutions to 29. An additional 15 states define marriage that way in state statutes.

"While they may be stepping up their efforts, pro-family groups are also stepping up our efforts in defense of traditional marriage," Mr. Sprigg said.

The New England states have been open to marriage alternatives.

Vermont and New Hampshire both offer civil unions for same-sex couples, while Maine extends "a few of the benefits accorded to married couples" through domestic partnerships, according to GLAD. Rhode Island also allows state employees to list gay domestic partners for health care and other benefits.

While the issue has enjoyed considerable success in the courts, same-sex marriage has never won through the state legislative process. The California legislature did approve same-sex marriage bills twice, but both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That could change when Vermont's legislature convenes later this month. The Six by Twelve campaign's best bet for a quick victory lies in Montpelier, where lawmakers are already planning to introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

A similar bill was introduced last year, but legislators elected instead to form a commission to study the issue. The panel held hearings throughout the state, where people testifying in favor of same-sex marriage routinely outnumbered opponents. The commission ultimately issued a report supporting gay marriage while stopping short of recommending it. Still, the issue's advocates say the panel helped lay the groundwork for this year's debate.

"A lot of legislators were nervous about this issue, so we saw this as an opportunity to educate Vermonters in rural areas and also in the cities," said Beth Robinson, chairwoman of Vermont Freedom to Marry. "This session, we're not looking for an alternative to moving it [a bill] to the floor. We're asking them to do the right thing now."

The bill could run into trouble with Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican who doesn't support same-sex marriage, according to his spokesman.

"He believes our civil-union law provides equality in same-sex relationships," spokesman Steve Wark said.

However, the governor, who won re-election handily in November, has never said that he would veto a bill, leaving same-sex marriage advocates with a sliver of hope.

"Given that he's a red governor in a blue state, he's managed to do that by being fair-minded," Ms. Robinson said. "Our own belief is that he'll do the right thing."

###

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,1855836.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays.
By Bob Barr

January 5, 2009

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.

The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.

Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.