Republican RICH TAFEL and Democrat CINDY JORDAN discuss gay party politics during the Bush presidency individual of the themes George W Bush has consistently struck is the ne for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

Republican RICH TAFEL and Democrat CINDY JORDAN discuss gay party politics during the Bush presidency

individual of the themes George W Bush has consistently struck is the ne for Democrats and Republicans to work together. nevertheless does that sense of bipartisanship cros through the whole extent of to gay and lesbian Democrats and Republicans? The sum of two units groups have often been at not divisible by 2s exchanging bitter accusations about each other's contributions to the mental action In an attempt to view what common ground gay Democrats and Republicans share, we invited a leader from each party to sit down and discuss their parts in the new administration. forward a gray and cold February afternoon in Washington, DC Rich Tafel, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, and Cindy Jordan, delegate director of the National Stonewall Democrats, met at a Dupont Circle eatery to talk about the political climate in the capital after President Bush's first month in office.

With all the talk of of bipartisanship in town these days, where does this leave gay and lesbian Democrats and Republicans? Could either of you papal court coalition building between Log Cabin Republicans and Stonewall Democrats?

Tafel: Before Stonewall [Democrats], we worked with the Human Rights Campaign, which has a largely Democratic agenda, forward issues. We worked with National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is largely liberal Democrat or progressive. There's a fate of common ground on issues of discrimination. The question is, the common ground is overrated. tribe just assume that because it's a gay cluster we're all going to agree forward things.

Jordan: I agree with Rich. I'm safe both organizations want to papal court the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed. We want to behold hate-crimes laws and those kinds of things, on the contrary we just have different systems The Log Cabin Republicans are doing it in consequence of the Republican Party; we're doing it in consequence of the Democratic Party. It's fit we have nonpartisan organizations in our move but it's also very dutiful we have partisan organizations in our motion without which party politics would ignore the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

You just threw on the outside ENDA and hate-crimes legislation. if it were not that is it fair to say you have the same position forward these issues?

Tafel: We supported one as well as the other those pieces of legislation. still if you said, "Is this the mostly crucial issue for the organization?" I would say for the Democratic assemblages it is. For the Log Cabins, it's not as driving an issue, and there's certainly debate within our organization. Underlying a fortune of gay Republican thinking is more libertarian thinking. That's where you papal court the real difference, with real big-government Democrats who turn the thoughts to the government to expound everything.

Jordan: I completely agree that there are more important issues. To use as an example, adoption: Our president, as governor of Texas, tried to push by the agency of one of the most homophobic adoption bills our geographical division knows. I know as a lesbian parent--my partner and I raise couple children-that Bush, when he talks about the American family, is not talking about our family. I don't believe that between the walls of the Republican Party as it stands, we're for aye going to get there.

by what means will the tone change in Washington with Bush in office?

Jordan: Stonewall Democrats are going to watch what Bush does and not what he says. In his first hardly any days in office we've seen a very large things to be touched about. The Ashcroft nomination was of course united of them. We believe that Bush at best is going to be silent forward our issues and at worst is going to be hostile. And that's not progres Stonewall is exceedingly committed to watching Bush and judging him in succession his record and not on his rhetoric.

Tafel: I think the solution words we just heard are they're going to "watch," they're going to criticize, they're going to react. It's the politics of pres release and criticism. The question is, for what cause do we achieve our goals given this risk of circumstances? I hear persons say, "We'll wait for brace years" or "We'll wait for four years." Log Cabin is not waiting. We're working with the Administration forward each of the issues that flows up. By working within the party, we'll purport things. John Ashcroft, for example--we have him more onward the record on gay rights than we had Janet Reno upon the record on gay rights. That's the difference between doing a pres release criticizing and working with the candidate and the Administration itself.

Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was flawed at best. What will you advocate for now?

Tafel: The "don't ask, don't tell" policy wasn't flawed. It was disastrous. The first thing I'd like to view happen is, let's live up to the policy as it's written back seven years ago. At least we can stop nation from being witch-hunted and being thrown abroad of the military. To me it's going to be a Republican strategy, it's going to be working with the secretary of Defense however it's also going to be working with Republicans in the Senate and the House with leadership characters in various ways. It's something we're working onward I don't want to go on foot into exact details of the strategy because I don't want to undermine it.