Openly Gay Man Seeks Obama’s Senate Job
11/29/09-by Paula Brooks
A 44 year old, openly gay, Chicago attorney is hoping to fill the Illinois US Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama and hopeful Jacob Meister is quick to point out his sexual orientation is only one part of how he is different from his opponents.
Meister, a graduate of American University in Washington, D.C and the University of Wisconsin Law School, declared his intention to run for the Democratic Senate nomination in September of this year and hopes to eventually fill the job presently held by embattled U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.
Burris has been mired in controversy ever since Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris to the Senate job shortly after federal authorities indicted Blagojevich on corruption charges, including charges Blagojevich allegedly solicited for his personal benefit, the appointment of Obama’s replacement for that seat and allegedly tried to sell the seat to the highest bidder.
Last week Burris received a “public letter of qualified admonition,” from the U.S. Senate ethics committee for making misstatements to investigators in that case.
As of last week’s official petition filing deadline, Meister finds himself keeping company with three other Democratic candidates for the seat’s nomination, including David Hoffman, former Chicago Urban League president Cheryle Jackson and Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.
If Meister were to be elected, he would be the first openly gay member of the Senate, but Meister is considered a long shot. A recent poll found Meister has the lowest level of support among the four candidates current vying for the Illinois Democratic Senate Nomination.
Miester however is not deterred by his poll numbers and has said he is confident a television campaign launched this week, in the Illinois cities of Champaign, Springfield and Peoria, would resonate with voters as he begins to build support around the state and he want to shy away from making the corruption this Senate Seat and instead make his campaign about one of jobs and the economy.
“There’s other people who would like to say that it’s all about corruption,” Meister says in one ad,“Obviously, corruption is an important message, but that’s not the measuring stick we should be using. This is about the economy.”
In an interview with the Edge, Meister said of his chances…
“I think the word ’underdog’ is getting thrown around less and less as I get out there… With the economy and jobs, people are hurting out there and I don’t see any of the other candidates addressing these issues. [When I decided to enter the race], I looked at [it] and said we have to get someone in Washington to address these issues. We don’t need more career politicians.”
“I bring the real world experience that I have developed over twenty years [to this race].”… “I’m not a recycled government employee or bureaucrat or politico. I’m coming to it for the right reasons. I always say there’s a difference between politics and government and unfortunately politics really interferes with good government. I’m about good government.”
via Openly gay man seeks Illinois U.S. Senate seat :: EDGE Boston.
Of course in terms of LGBT issues, Meisters specifically supports the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the passage of a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Meisters has also said he is confident his identity as an openly gay man help his campaign.
“I think it’s actually a strength of my candidacy,” Meister said of his sexual orientation to the Edge. “I think it resonates with Illinois voters as they recognize that this is the civil rights issue of today. Illinois is a progressive state.”
Meister does have a substantial background in government, he was an intern with Milwaukee’s mayor and county executive when he was 18 and also served as a delegate to the Wisconsin Democratic convention.
He has also worked for former Wisconsin Congressman Jim Moody while Meister completed his bachelor’s degree in international relations and political science in DC.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=eca8360c-d326-41e0-9f49-cc65727cf9ec)
Loading ...
Not to throw any wrienches in here; but Barney Franlk is also openly gay. Let us ask questions as to ideas around leadership – how the candidate will pursue leadership and pursue our issues as opposed to merely supportiung them once elected. My frustration is with progressive members of congress and the Senate who sign on as co-sponsors of legislatyion and think they have done enough after that. To my way of thinking supporting LGBT legislation is to push for it as well!!! I do like the sound of this candidate. Let us not forget to ask the questions.
Barney Frank is in the House. Jacob Meister is running for the Senate. The significance here is that a bill must go through both the House and the Senate before the President signs it into law. In order to go through the House and the Senate, there needs to be House members and a Senate member that introduce the bill. As far as I know there are people that will introduce bills in the House, but no one is willing to introduce bills in the Senate. That is where the problem lies, candidates say they support (meaning they will vote for) an issue all the time . . . but support is very different than introduce.
Sue,
I agree that it would be divine to have a gay Senator, but I do not believe we should turn our back on his record or the people he has worked with. We should not ignore his record or his qualifications. I’d rather have no gay Senator than a horrible one who can’t do anything.
Found two other articles on bilerico.com that say Meister will make it a priority to introduce LBGT bills. (http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/illinois_jacob_meister_aims_to_be_the_first_openly_1.php and http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/illinois_jacob_meister_aims_to_be_the_first_openly.php) it looks like
Sei,
We cross-posted. I’ve gone to his website and read articles about him. What is his record and the who are the people you refer to?
Sei,
As a progressive I take candidates I back very seriously. I thought Meister looked good so I did some additional research after your comment. Nothing negative came up for for Meister. Then I thought you must have him confused with one of the other candidates. I think that must be it because when I googled I found that the other candidates in the race are a very sketch group. Giannoulias is linked to the usual suspects like Blago. His current family banking problems are troubling, but his connection to things like prostitution rings and the Abramoff/casino boat fiasco is stunning. As for Hoffman I’m not sure why Hoffman calls himself a Democrat. He worked for an anti-choice Blue Dog (Sen. Boren) and then clerked for two right-wing judges — including Rehnquist. Jackson is tame, she’s just linked to Blago.
Would love if you could explain your comments. Please explain about people he worked with, qualifications and why he’s a do nothing. Till then I’ll stick with Meister.
Sue
Bridg,
Thanks for your replay.
I’m also Jewish and I’ve seen this happen before — it bewilders me. I live in a Jewish Dem area. Somehow a Repub incumbent, who votes with the Repub 95% of the time, keeps winning because 4-6% of the Jewish Dems in the district consider him strong on Israel. I talk to these Jews that flip and they disagreed with many of his other stances, but they vote for him because they believe he is strong on Israel.
So we ran a true-blue Jewish Dem with impeccable Middle-East Dem credential against him. Our candidate was on target with all the Dem issues and he was a Middle-East advisor to Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Clinton, Gore and Kerry won in our district so we thought we had the situation beat. Guess what, the most skeptical people I called day in and day out when I worked for his campaign– Jews. All the sudden the true-blue Jewish Dems who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the Repub incumbent had one new issue that made our all true blue Dem candidate with respected Middle-East experience less appealing than the Repub incumbent. Yet again, the Repub won with 4% of the Dem Jewish vote.
I can’t explain it. But I do know that when Dems, who voted for the Repub incumbent, complain about one of his votes, I have no time and I tell them that. From this race I learned that we can either win our own battles or we can make our own battles. Not sure what emotion prevents us from winning, but often we do it to ourselves.
Sue
Don’t feel bad Sue… my home district congressman is Walter Jones… the “Freedom Fries” guy… everyone in the district said he was a wacko after that one… yet they still voted him back into office… go figure huh?
Am I missing something here? I looked at his website, too, and failed to find any political experience. He’s a litigation-type lawyer, not a policy-making lawyer. Kudos to him for pushing LGBT bills, but does he have the political savvy to get anything done?
He worked on Capitol Hill as well as in State and local government. Check out his “Meet Jacob” section. As I understand it he has the most legislative experience of all the people running. The others were spokespeople or State Treasure. These aren’t legislative positions.
Sue,
The ‘we’ I referred to is a collective ‘we’, as in all media writers and all citizens who might vote for him. I have not had the opportunity to investigate his positions as of yet. I would like to point out that a gay man is running for the Lt. Governor’s position in Massachusetts. There are people out there who say that we should vote for him because he is gay. There are people who said that we should have voted for McCain/Palin because Sarah Palin is a woman. I was just trying to convey, largely to our readers, the importance of researching a candidate before they vote or support, and that the political stances should outweigh the personal life in almost all situations.
Bridg
Bridg,
Thanks for your replay.
I’m also Jewish and I’ve seen this happen before — it bewilders me. I live in a Jewish Dem area. Somehow a Repub incumbent, who votes with the Repub 95% of the time, keeps winning because 4-6% of the Jewish Dems in the district consider him strong on Israel. I talk to these Jews that flip and they disagreed with many of his other stances, but they vote for him because they believe he is strong on Israel.
So we ran a true-blue Jewish Dem with impeccable Middle-East Dem credential against him. Our candidate was on target with all the Dem issues and he was a Middle-East advisor to Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Clinton, Gore and Kerry won in our district so we thought we had the situation beat. Guess what, the most skeptical people I called day in and day out when I worked for his campaign– Jews. All the sudden the true-blue Jewish Dems who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the Repub incumbent had one new issue that made our all true blue Dem candidate with respected Middle-East experience less appealing than the Repub incumbent. Yet again, the Repub won with 4% of the Dem Jewish vote.
I can’t explain it. But I do know that when Dems, who voted for the Repub incumbent, complain about one of his votes, I have no time and I tell them that. From this race I learned that we can either win our own battles or we can make our own battles. Not sure what emotion prevents us from winning, but often we do it to ourselves.
Sue
Sue,
You are welcome. I think a lot of people fear changing out their elected representatives unless they royally screw up. In Vermont, it’s understandable since a long serving politician gives us a lot of power, but that comes with a price as well. We all know how Leahy, Sanders and Welsh vote and if we do not like how they vote they had better have a damn good explanation as to why they voted against the will of the voters. On the other hand, our Senators vote with the constituents the majority of the time, and really only break with us and support the Party every so often, and usually on issues that do not effect the state directly. Leahy’s been in office almost as long as I’ve been alive. Right now, Peter Welsh is being groomed to take over for him in another seven years, and then his replacement will aim for Sander’s seat once it becomes open. Yes, we apprentice our Senators.
But, yeah, we should vote based upon an entire package, and not simple labels. The problem is convincing people of that, and you’re correct on that one Sue.
Take care,
Bridg
Bridg,
Any way you cut this election it is a change because it is an open seat.
This is an article about the frontrunner that hit today http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/can-alexi-giannoulias-family-bank-obamas-senate-seat/Content?oid=1245291. The other candidates are just as sketchy. Would be a shame to lose this seat to a Republican because the Blago trial will hit during the general and Giannoulias and Jackson are sure to show up there. Many of the Jews and Progressive Dems say they will either sit the election out or vote Green rather than for a Rehnquist-Dem.
Sue
Sue,
I have spent the last several days coughing in asthmatic fits to the point where it has been hard to breathe. While I am finally better, I have not had a chance to really look over the field in Illinois. Last I knew, there was another potential candidate who had yet to make a decision regarding the race for Senate. If he did run, his record would be very clean with regards to the scandals surrounding Blagoiavich.
Bridg
Bridg,
Sorry to hear that you were sick. Glad you are better. As for someone getting in the race — not sure how that can be done. Best I know the ballot is closed.
Sue
Sue