When it comes to politics the Bush men have always been cut from the same cloth. When it came to their social lives, however, W seemed more factory reject than signature line. After all, the old man was pure buttoned-down, double-starched Connecticut. The young Bush was boozy Texas bravado down to his boots. Lately, though, we've seen encouraging signs that W's penchant for a good time was indeed inherited from Pops.

The elder Bush is apparently getting in touch with his inner W. First, Bush the Elder was snapped literally with a chorus girl in his lap (Katie Cameron, from a playhouse production of A Chorus Line). The ex-Prez looked as happy as any 84-year-old with a bikini-clad dancer half—a third?—his age plopped upon his khakis can, and we thought, Well, here's proof he isn't dead.

The next day, it was announced that HW was gonna celebrate his 85th birthday with a little skydiving and interviewing with CNN's Robin Meade. We started to wonder if someone's been spiking the Kennebunkport water supply with Cialis.

Not to suggest anything nefarious, but the old man could've presumably jumped with Anderson (who you just know has "Skydiving with a President" on his bucket list). Instead the former Navy ace will jump with the only CNN anchor ever to win the title of Miss Ohio and sexiest newscaster on Playboy.com, as well as the only one with at least three YouTube compilation videos of her "sexy legs" alone. (Here you go, you perverts and, uh, Mr. uh…President, sir: Robin Meade's Legs.)

Meade described the opportunity to tandem-jump alongside the president as "a thrill and honor" that will bring her to "a new level of excitement". We're thinking it will do the same for Senior Bush.

And while we can't be sure whether these shenanigans represent some staged effort to show the Republican Party has still got some virility and life in it, or if Bush just really wants to be the Preppy Berlusconi, we say politics be damned. Happy Birthday, sir!

Try not to pull the wrong cord.—luke zaleski

Barney Frank on how we got into this mess, what he thinks of Arlen Specter, and the difference between secrecy and hypocrisy

By Lisa DePaulo

He’s not a small-talk kind of guy. There’s not even a hello or a handshake when I walk in. There is no acknowledgment of any kind. He’s at his desk, shuffling through papers, doesn’t even look up. I stand there a while, foolishly, then take a seat in front of his desk. Still nothing. He takes a call, hangs up. Doesn’t look up once to make eye contact. I wait.

Barney Frank has been plugging away in Congress for more than a quarter century now, fighting the good fight through “too many” Republican administrations. He was the first congressman to come out of the closet (voluntarily), in 1987, and two years later was publicly humiliated by a sex scandal (remember that live-in hustler?) that nearly ruined him. These days he’s chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and he’s dealing, every day, with an epidemic of foreclosures and simmering rage over executive compensation and regulation-averse senators. So his brusqueness is well earned. We meet with him just before the credit-card reform bill he sponsored became law—consumer protection is one of the many causes he’s fought for for years—to talk about his agenda, his relationship with Barack Obama, Arlen Specter’s defection, and his much (much) younger boyfriend. But first he needs to look up from his desk.

*****

Take your time.
[Takes another call.] Let me get back to you. I’ll call you back. [Hangs up. Takes another call, this time from his secretary.] Who is Mr. Mueller? Okay, yeah. I’m just too busy to get involved in that. [Hangs up. A few more seconds pass, some rearranging of paper, and then, finally, he looks up.] Okay, please go ahead.

So I guess you have a lot going on right now.
Yeah.

I was just asking one of your staffers what was on the agenda for you this week—
A very big week. We will be voting on a bill to reform the granting of subprime mortgages, where there’s been a major Democrat and Republican fight. Um, it’s really the single biggest cause of the financial crisis: mortgages going to people who shouldn’t have them. We’ve been trying to stop that.

Stop it or undo it?
Undoing it and stopping it are two separate things. The easier thing to do conceptually is to stop it from going forward and having it happen again. As to trying to diminish the number of foreclosures, there are programs to do that, but that’s tougher, because once people have made contracts, you can’t just change it. We are trying to get the bankruptcy law changed. That would be the biggest single thing. But the Senate has not yet gone along with that. Ironically, the Republicans, some of them, have said, “Oh, you Democrats, you made us give them to poor people, and that’s what caused the trouble.” The answer is no, we have been trying to put some rules in place to stop this, and we tried when we were the minority. Didn’t work. When we got into the majority in 2007, we passed a bill to stop it, but it got bogged in the Senate. It was a partisan thing. So now we’re trying again this year. And with a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate, we think we can get it done.

When you look at this mess, how do you see it ending?
I think…As a national economic crisis, I think by the end of this year it winds down. A lot of people are still gonna be hurt, people who’ve lost their homes and lost value. And how it ends is, housing prices go down; people begin to buy the houses which have now become so cheap—and the interest rates are so low—that it starts to go back up again that way.

But what about people who are selling too cheap and losing all their money?
Well, I said some people are gonna get hurt. I just said that. The number one thing that has to be done is to try to reduce the foreclosures. That’s the single biggest thing.

Did you read Paul Krugman today?
Not yet.

He was writing about how the pay on Wall Street is back up, the bonuses are back up. How is that happening?
Well, it’s about the free-enterprise system, and that’s the way America has always worked. In 2006, I tried to deal with that, and the Republicans said no. We passed a bill on it in 2007; it didn’t pass in the Senate. But that’s free enterprise. People are gonna make as much money as they can unless there’s a rule that says they can’t.

Except that—as Krugman pointed out today, which was interesting—it’s one thing when it’s free enterprise, but it’s quite another when—
No, you’re asking me to justify it. I’m not justifying it.

No, I’m not—
Please. I have to have one rule: If you want me to explain something, and if you’re gonna assume that when I explain it I support it, then I can’t explain it to you.

Oh no, I don’t at all.
Well, your question—

I’m just angry about it, I guess…
The rules are, you can pay as much as you want. Now we have put some restrictions on the compensation. We want to put some more on. Again, the House passed a bill that’s pending in the Senate to do this. Going forward, I want to pass legislation that will do two things. First of all, the shareholders get to vote on whether they like the pay package. It wouldn’t be binding, but I don’t think many companies would reject what the shareholders said if they thought it was too high. Secondly, we have to have rules—and this is the worst part of it: It’s not just that they make too much money, but the incentive structure is wrong. If you are one of these top people and you make a gamble with the company’s money and it pays off, you get extra money. But if you make a gamble with the company’s money and the company loses money, you don’t lose any money. Heads you win, tails you break even. Well, if I told you that if you took a risk and if it paid off, you would get money, but if it failed you wouldn’t lose anything, what would you do? Take another risk. So we’re gonna have to put rules in to stop that.

Do you feel optimistic about that, though?
Fifty-fifty.

What’s going to be the hardest fight?
I think getting…The hardest, most important thing is getting the authority in the federal government to say that nobody can take so much risk with so little capital to back it up that they become a threat to the whole system. So that no one can be in the position of Lehman Brothers or AIG, where they can’t meet their obligations and we have two bad choices: either we let them go bust and it has terrible consequences for everybody else, like Lehman Brothers, or we have to bail out their creditors.

How much does Bill Clinton deserve blame for—
Oh, very little. The bad loans, subprime loans, are the cause of this. [Pulls out a chart.] This is a chart as to what percentage of overall loans were subprime loans that went bad. Of the loans that went bad, what percentage were subprime loans? Look at that chart. Look when it starts to spike. [It starts to spike in 2003.] And here, this one too. [He pulls out another chart.] Loans in foreclosure by type. They’re all together, and then the subprimes—

Start to spike in 2003.
We gotta make our argument to the Republicans. Many of us wanted to build affordable rental housing for low-income people. They said, “Oh, rental housing is not good; it’s bad for people’s spirits. We want them to become homeowners.” So the Bush administration pushed hard to make people homeowners, and that was the result.

When you look back at decisions you made regarding banking and regulation, what would you do differently?
I would have pressed harder for regulation of hedge funds and other things. We tried. But the whole Senate was against us. And, uh, we did try hard on subprime. We got shut down. I guess regulating hedge funds, derivatives, I backed off too easy because of the opposition. I don’t think we would have succeeded, but we should have pushed harder.

You don’t think you could have succeeded?
No. Senate members overwhelmingly don’t regulate, as recently as two and a half years ago. I became the chairman of the committee in waiting in 2006, and overwhelmingly I was told by people, “Oh, you gotta deregulate, you gotta relax, you’re driving business overseas.” I wanted to regulate hedge funds. Make them register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A lot of Democrats said, “Oh, don’t! Jeez, if you file that out and take a position, please don’t make me do that. You can’t win anyway.” So I dropped it. I should have pushed harder.

At the end of the day, how much treasury money do you think is going to be spent fixing, bailing out—
Not nearly as much as you may think. [pause] Much less than the 700 billion we put out. We’ll get most of that back.

That’s good news if that’s true.
Let’s put it this way: much, much, much, much less than the war in Iraq. See, it troubles me when people talk about all this deficit spending. The biggest single thing that added to the deficit was the war in Iraq, which I thought was a bad mistake as a war anyway. That cost us a trillion dollars.

What is your relationship with the president?
Oh, very good. Because I think he’s very smart and able, and I am in a position where we work closely. He’s got three major domestic objectives: health care, global warming, and financial regulation. And by my committee chairmanship, I’m in one of those. [Points to a picture on the wall of him, Obama, and another guy.]

Nice picture.
That’s my boyfriend on the end.

Oh, is that—his name is Jim?
Yeah.

He’s handsome.
Yeah.

A lot younger than you.
Thirty years.

Do you want to marry him?
I won’t talk about that in public.

Okay, fair enough. But I’m curious how you feel about where gay marriage is right now. Is it disappointing that you now have this young Democratic president, this young black Democratic president, who still won’t come out for—
Not really. Because he’s been so good on everything else. And, uh, I understand the political reality. I was not in favor of his coming out for same-sex marriage when he first got elected. But I would hope he would be by the time he runs for reelection.

You would hope he would be, but you weren’t in favor of him doing so in 2008?
I think it would have given the opposition help they didn’t need.

So do you think Obama doesn’t really feel that there should be same-sex marriage? Or was it just a political—
I don’t know what’s in his heart of hearts. I do know that it was…The general view, which I shared, was that no one who wanted to get elected president could have been a supporter of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, things have moved very far since then, and I’m more optimistic about 2012 than I was about same-sex marriage.

When you look back, some of the things that have happened, like Larry Craig—what did you think when his arrest became public, given what he put you through? [Craig was one of the Republican house members who voted to censure Frank during his scandal in 1989, when a prostitute Frank had dated claimed he had run a sex-for-money business out of Frank’s house.]
Well, I’m just reminded of, uh, what a terrible thing it is to feel you have to hide your sexuality. I did myself for too many years.

Why did you decide to reveal it?
Because I was goin’ nuts not being out. Because I wasn’t able to have a satisfying personal life. In fact, I got involved with a hustler. Well, that was because I…When I came out, it was voluntary. I had no reason to think he was going to do anything, but I just couldn’t live a normal life. There is a view that gay and lesbian people have had historically—I hope they don’t still have it—that “I can’t be honest about my sexuality.” You realize, when we are honest about our sexuality, it’s called coming out; when straight people are honest about their sexuality, it’s called talking. Because everybody talks about their sexuality all the time. But, um, there was this view that “Oh, well, I won’t have a great private life, but I’ll have a career that will make up for it.” In my experience, that just damages your career, because there are emotions and needs that you want to express in your private life, and if you can’t express them in your private life, they’ll poison your public life. So I did it just out of…I was aware it would be good politically for the gay and lesbian community. But the main reason was, I couldn’t live that way anymore. I was tired of not being able to meet guys or having to hide a relationship. I just wanted to end it.

Do you think you’d have survived your scandal today?
I don’t know. Dave Vitter seems to be surviving.

But has it gotten nastier out there?
It has. The media’s gotten more aggressive, and the partisanship has increased. One of the things that happened was Newt Gingrich came to town, and Newt explicitly and specifically said, Look, this is nonsense about we’re friends. We are enemies. He specifically said, It is a mistake to say that the Democrats are honorable people with whom we disagree. They are traitors. They are corrupt. They are immoral. And things clearly deteriorated, didn’t they?

Is there such a thing as bipartisanship? Can it work?
Oh, sure. It does a lot of times. You guys just don’t pay attention to it when it does. A lot of what we do is bipartisan. I think bipartisanship means you recognize the differences. You are together with the people with whom you agree, but you don’t let the legitimate differences poison your ability to work together when there are no differences. And by the way, look, it was the Bush administration—Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke—who came to the Democratic Congress last year and said, The economy is about to fall apart. We need you to help us.

Do you see any danger in one-party rule?
Nope. Not necessarily. And first of all, for the Republicans to claim that is totally hypocritical, since it didn’t bother them when it was them—No, I think there’s more danger in having nobody in charge and nobody to be held responsible. I don’t think the New Deal was a bad period in American history, and that was the Democrats in charge.

But when you put yourself back in 2002, when Republicans ruled the world, you didn’t think that was very healthy.
No, but it wasn’t healthy because I disagree with their policies. I never argued that there was something inherently wrong with people winning elections.

What’s your relationship like with Larry Summers?
Pretty good. I’ve known him for a long time.

Is it unfair that people call him arrogant?
No. It’s not unfair that people call me arrogant. We’re both arrogant.

Okay.
Look, arrogance is kind of a trait—I will say this about Larry and hope I’d say it about myself: There’s kind of a predisposition to be a little brusque with people. But I don’t think it has interfered with his ability to listen and be flexible. I don’t think it’s a dysfunctional trait.

When you look at him and Geithner, are they less beholden to Wall Street than the Bush guys were?
Oh, sure.

How?
Because they work for Obama. There’s no such thing as Summers and Geithner; there’s Obama. They are extensions of him. And he is much less—not beholden to Wall Street, philosophically in tune with them. George Bush was in tune with “Don’t regulate.” Barack Obama is not. It’s a big philosophical difference.

What’s Bush’s legacy going to be?
It’s a sad one. It’s a huge deficit and a devaluing of our ability to come together as a people and solve problems. And the financial crisis—this is their deregulation.

Where do you think the GOP is right now?
Floundering badly. I think what you have is, the dominant voice right now is a very conservative voice that doesn’t really have a significant following in the country as a whole. Dick Cheney is announcing that Rush Limbaugh is a much better Republican than Colin Powell. Well, that sounds like something the Democrats would want to say.

Let’s talk about Arlen Specter.
What about him?

I’m curious what you think about his decision.
Well, as a Democrat, I’m glad to have him. But as an elected official, I have to say I don’t think he did our profession any good. First of all, to announce that it was done purely so he could survive. Secondly, his performance since then has been very disappointing. In particular, what troubled me was when he was quoted as saying, “Well…” In terms of no Jewish Republicans, the answer should have been, Who cares? That’s not a relevant issue. But then, when he said, Oh, but I’m confident the courts in Minnesota will do justice to Norm Coleman, and then said, Oh, I forgot which side I’m on!—forget about forgetting which side he’s on. What that says is, his view of what the law should be depends on what party he’s in. This notion that your view of what’s an appropriate legal decision depends on your party is shocking for a guy who’s supposed to be this great lawyer.

What do you think it’s going to be like having him on your side?
Well, so far, look, it’ll mean he’ll vote with the Democrats more often. But there’s an erratic behavior pattern there that’s very troubling. I think at this point it’s entirely reasonable for some Democrats to think about challenging him.

How do you feel about what Nancy Pelosi knew, torture-wise, and when she knew it?
I sympathize with her for this reason: I’ve been in that position. You get briefed, you are told something in absolute confidence, and you can’t share it with anybody, and you’re not necessarily prepared to handle it. It’s really a way to shut you up. I was given that choice once. I was invited, when I was senior Democrat in the minority on the Financial Services Committee, to a briefing by two young guys from the Treasury Department. I got there—after divesting myself outside of my cell phone and my wallet and everything else—and they said, “We’re gonna show you something that’s gonna be in the newspaper in a couple weeks, and we want to tell you about it.” I said, “Why is it gonna be in the newspaper? Is this something you’re announcing?” “Oh no.” And it became clear to me, as we talked, it was something that had been leaked, and they were happy that it was being leaked, but they were gonna tell me about it beforehand. And I said, “Well, let me ask you this question. If I listen to you now and read what you want to show me, and it then appears in the newspapers, can I talk about it after it’s been in the newspaper?” They said no. I said good-bye. And so I think that’s what happened to Nancy. She was given information in a way that she literally couldn’t use, could not self-evaluate, because she was all by herself. In fact, she and I have talked about this, and some others. We have to change these rules about what you can do with briefing information.

There’s a new movie out called Outrage, about closeted politicians. Do you still adhere to Barney Frank’s Rule about outing?
Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I think people who are hypocrites…The way I put it is, there’s a right to privacy but not to hypocrisy. Sarah Brady—you know who she is?

Yeah, James Brady’s wife—
Suppose you found out that she owned an Uzi. Would you think that should be public?

Absolutely.
Same point. Or if a leading antiabortion person had a family member with an abortion. Or vice versa, or if a Democrat’s a tax evader. It’s hypocrisy.

Well, it sounds like the number one hypocrite in this movie is Charlie Crist.
I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know. I will say, without commenting on Crist, he has been much less antigay guy than a lot of others. So if it’s…You know, I differentiate between secrecy and hypocrisy. I think it becomes a problem when you’re a hypocrite and you’re a gay-basher.

When is it inappropriate to out someone?
If they’re not being antigay themselves. I think people have a right to privacy. But I don’t think you have a right to engage in an activity yourself and then try to make other people’s lives miserable for engaging in it. There’s no philosophical justification for that.

But you’ve seen hypocrisy among Democratic candidates that are closeted.
Not hypocrisy.

Closeted ones? There’s a few.
Hypocrisy means that they’re antigay. You’re confusing secrecy and hypocrisy. Sure there are closeted Democrats. There are closeted Republicans. What we’re outing is hypocrisy. I want to go after their hypocrisy, not their privacy.

But aren’t closeted Democrats in a sense being hypocritical to what the party stands for?
No. Look, the party doesn’t stand for everybody announcing his or her personal sexual orientation. The party stands for public policies that say you don’t discriminate.

But in an ideal world, it would be nice if everybody just came out.
Yes, but that doesn’t make you hypocritical. I’m a great believer in using words very specifically.

I see that. Do you ever feel, Gee, I hope one of these years I never have to talk about gay issues in an interview?
Yeah, but not because I mind talking about them. Someday they’re not gonna be issues anymore. But I would like to not have to talk about it, because I would like no 15-year-old to go through what I went through.

Did you ever, after what Dick Armey said about you [he called him “Barney Fag”]—did you ever talk to him or make up with him?
Yes, he tried to tell me it was a slip of the tongue, and I said nonsense.

Would that happen today?
No.

So what’s Jimmy like?
Oh, he’s wonderful. He’s open and fresh. He was never in politics.

And he surfs, right?
He surfs all year round. He surfs in Maine in a wet suit. And he’s, uh, you know, he’s very caring. It’s nice to have somebody worry about you that way.

Let’s talk about your coming out. At that time, in ’87—
It was scary. I thought it would have a much more negative effect than it did. But I really just did it because I couldn’t not do it.

How did you do it?
Interesting. By ’85, ’86, I was…See, I came to Washington in ’81. I’d been closeted all my life, from Massachusetts. I said, Okay, here’s the deal: I’m gonna be publicly closeted and privately active as a gay man. Like I said, you can’t live half gay and half closeted. So the insiders knew I was gay. But the rule then and now was—well, it’s slipping a little bit now—but the rule was, you don’t out somebody unless he or she was engaged in some scandal. Now, the problem there was, the only time people got to know who was gay was when we’d done something terrible. You know, they didn’t know from normal gay people who didn’t have troubles. Um, but so the press knew I was gay. So it then got to the point where I was thinking about coming out. Gerry Studds had already had to come out, although he was very courageous, because he acknowledged being gay, whereas everybody else who’d been caught claimed they were drunk. It’s incredible, these people who say when they’re drunk, they were able to do sexual things that they couldn’t do when they were sober. I don’t know people like that.

Like Mel Gibson.
Right, “I was driving drunk out of my mind!” But, um, the press by ’85 was saying to me, “We would like to write about you being gay.” It’s fascinating. Here was the rule: They couldn’t write about it unless I gave them permission. So they would say, “Can we write about your being gay?” And I would say no. Finally, in early ’87, I decided that I was ready for them to write about it. But I didn’t want to be the one to bring it up, because I wanted to say, “Oh, it’s not a big deal.” Well, as I’ve said since, if your sexuality is not a big deal, you have my sympathy. Who wants to have a sexuality that’s no big deal? But I figured I had to minimize it, downplay it. So I could acknowledge it, but I couldn’t make a big deal of it. And I couldn’t have a press conference to announce something that I was prepared to say was not a big deal. So—[Phone rings.] That’s Jimmy. [Picks it up.] Hey, I’m just talking about you…Yes, to GQ…And the interviewer thinks you’re handsome.

Very.
“Very,” she just said….“Very,” yes….[Cups phone.] He said, “Wow.” [Huge smile.] .…What? Yeah, she saw the picture of the three of us….The one on the couch of me, you, and the president….Yeah, the one up on the couch….Where are you?...All right. Well, lemme call you back, so I can finish my interview….When you’re home? I will, okay….All right, okay…. [Hangs up.] He says thank you.

lisa depaulo is a gq correspondent.

Michael Steele, the embattled new head of the Republican Party, on whether he'd be in this job if he were white, why he left the seminary for the GOP, and where his diminished party goes from here

by lisa depaulo; photograph by jason schmidt

I met Michael Steele in his office at the RNC several weeks into his new job, while he was still unpacking his stuff. It’d been a tough beginning—and was about to get even worse, with one committeewoman calling for his resignation after he picked the now legendary fight with Rush Limbaugh. Even Saturday Night Live found him goofy enough to make fun of. But Steele seemed anything but under siege when we talked. He was exuberant, charming, intense, playful—not the usual vibe you get at the RNC. Like his best-known predecessor, Ken Mehlman, he is fastidious (“Yeah, I’m kinda crazy like that”). Unlike Mehlman, he talks. And talks. Nothing is off the record. Everything is amusing. Even the heavy dark-wood Republican furniture he has inherited. Don’t worry, he assures me, he’s “redoing the whole thing. This is gonna sound weird, but it’s way too male for me. Would you like a piece of chocolate?” They’re…kisses.

I was kinda expecting hip-hop to be playing in here today.
Aw, sh—. It’s on my, uh, computer there. I haven’t pulled it up yet, but I’ll get a little bit goin’ in a second or two.

Who do you listen to?
I actually listen to a cross section, because I like to hear what the medium is saying, what the voice is.

But do you have a favorite?
P. Diddy I enjoy quite a bit.

Do you want to rethink that?
[laughs] I guess I’m sorta old-school that way. Remember, I came of age with the DJ and all this other stuff, so I’m also loving Grandmaster Flash, and that’s not hip-hop, but… Um, you know, I like Chuck D. And I always thought Snoop Dogg was—he just reminded me of the fellas back home. So I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed him.

Who else?
I like Sinatra. I like old-school. You know, Bing Crosby, Sinatra, Dean Martin. Love Dean Martin. He was one of these guys who just didn’t give an F. He just didn’t. Life was a party, and you either want to party or you don’t. But yeah, I like those. I’m a big Pack Rat. I love the Pack Rats from the 1950s—Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Frank Sinatra, those guys.

You mean the Rat Pack.
The Rat Pack, yeah.

Okay, so tell me about this hip-hop plan of yours.
Well, I have to admit, I’m rather amused. It was a conversation I had with a Washington Times reporter, and we were talking about the breadth and depth of the reach that I would try to bring to the party. And I told him, everybody’s in play. I want to reach everybody; I want to touch everybody. I think we have a very strong and powerful message to deliver. The urban community is a center for economic activity. It always has been, particularly in the black community. We are very much an entrepreneurial people, and I think the Republican message is one that speaks directly to that. It’s self-empowerment, it’s ownership, it’s opportunity. And hip-hop—I used hip-hop more as a symbolic term. I know some people started going a little nuts about “Oh, well, you know, they’re misogynists!” And some call them urban terrorists, which I think is an offensive term. But you know, they miss the point of what hip-hop is. Hip-hop is about economic empowerment. You’re talking about a generation of men from, you know, P. Diddy to Russell Simmons and the like who have created empire from their talent. Russell Simmons has empire. His reach is beyond hip-hop.

You’re not gonna convert Russell Simmons, though.
I’m not trying to convert anybody. If I wanted to convert somebody, I’d have kept my collar on, as a monk. What I’m trying to do is to inform. I have enough respect for people that they can make their own decisions. I just want to be in a situation where every time they’re not against me.

You made the comment at the convention about the sea of white faces. And you got a little bit of heat for that.
I sure did. And I looked at the people who gave me the heat and said, “What’s your problem? You tell me I’m wrong. Look at the room. Thirty-six black folks in the room? What, are you kidding me? Out of 4,000 people? Come on!”

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.

But how are you going to change that perception?
You change it by force of personality, you change it by force of will, and sometimes you change it by force. [laughs]

Say what?
You go and you say, [pounding desk] “You will find tools that you will put in place, structures that will allow and embrace more diverse people to come to the party.” But this is the thing to keep in mind: Opening up the party, and making it more accessible, and making it more relevant, does not mean that I need to backslide on what I believe or what values we hold. We are a party; we are the conservative party of this country. We are a party that values life, born and unborn. We value hard work, individual rights, and liberties. We value the individual—to go out and carve out a dream for themselves. We value free-market and free-enterprise solutions. We value smaller government. We think the less government in your life, the better off you are as an individual and a family.

It’s a tough job for you right now, isn’t it?
It is, it is. I’m not gonna lie to you.

What’s been the hardest part?
Balancing so many competing interests. Balancing the House, the Senate, the base. I mean, everyone’s got something to say, and they’re saying it. [laughs]

How do you deal with the criticism?
I just pray on it.

You do?
Oh yeah. And I ask God, “Hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don’t go out and kick this person’s ass.”

Spoken like a true seminarian. Let’s talk about your background. You have a fascinating background. You were adopted—
Mm-hmm.

Tell me how it happened.
Well, from what I’ve been told, it’s really kind of a touching story. My mother, when we finally talked about it—it wasn’t until I was much older that she shared with me the story of my arriving in our home. And she said that she was unable to conceive children, and decided, you know, with her husband, that they wanted to have a family. So she went to Catholic charities here, St. Ann’s infant home in Maryland. And she said it was funny, she was walking through the nursery and she got to this one crib, and there was this baby there, and the baby stood up and reached out and said, “Mom.” And that was me.

How old would you have been?
Oh, 7, 8 months old.

And you said, “Mom”?
And reached for her. When she walked by, I reached for her. And even the nuns were, like, floored by that moment. It was very powerful when she told me that. I was a sobbing wreck when she told me that story.

And your father—
My dad—my adoptive father—he, unfortunately, was an alcoholic and a spousal abuser. He died when I was 4, from alcoholism.

Do you remember your father?
Yeah, I do. And I remember the fact that—and my mother confirmed—that he really did love me. I mean, he really cared. But he would take me out on dates when he would go with his girlfriends, or he would take me out to hang with his drinking buddies. It was kind of weird, but that was his way of being a father, I guess.

Did you ever see him hurt your mother?
Um, no. No, I never saw… But I do remember one time—and again, it was a moment when, I think this was the year he died, finding this puff of black lint in the hall. Well, it was her hair. I didn’t know it at the time, but he would pull… And I’m sitting there playing with it, and you know, I thought it was a dust ball or something. I didn’t know. But she never wanted me to think bad of him, no matter how bad he was to her.

There are similarities between your background and the president’s, don’t you think?
There are. And I think that’s—I guess that’s a historic note to make. I mean, I haven’t really thought about it that much. I just know that it was very difficult, you know? Life in a neighborhood where you couldn’t play here, you couldn’t shop there. Coming of age in the ’60s was a very challenging time. I was 10 when Dr. King was killed. I remember the day he was killed. We were on a bus, downtown D.C., heading home. And this guy jumped on the bus and yelled, “They just killed King.” The bus erupts. My mother’s in shock. And I’m lookin’ at her, saying, “Who’s King?” When we got home, turned the news on, and you’re watching the riots begin and all this unfold, and I just remember my mother being upset and asking her what was going on, and she put it in a context she thought I’d understand, which was “A friend of the family just died.” She is a very soft-spoken woman who has been a powerful witness to history through her own life, but then has provided me witness to that history as well, in what she taught me and what she shared and what she explained, you know: “Son, you may be successful, but remember, you’re still black.”

When Barack Obama gave the speech on race, did you agree with what he said?
I did. I mean, some of it. But my concern throughout this campaign was, people were treating him like he was going to be the Second Coming on the question of race. And because you have a black man as president doesn’t mean that tomorrow morning a black business is not gonna get redlined or a black family’s gonna be able to get their house. Those issues still exist. So the reality of it is, electing Barack does not necessarily change the underlying concerns and issues related to race. On one level it does, but I’m still a black man; when I walk in a room, you have attitudes about black folks. I can’t change that. And I’ve gotta deal with that reality regardless of my title. There are people in this country right now who would look at Barack Obama and still refer to him as “boy.” Period. That’s the reality of America. So my point is, just recognize that while the election is historic, while it is important, while it is transformative, it does not absolve us of having to deal day in and day out, in my life and your life, with the question of race.

Was it emotional for you when Barack was sworn in?
No.

Why not?
I don’t get caught up that way.

But didn’t you feel—
I felt… No, I felt pride. I felt excited about it. But, um, I don’t know, I have a different perception of this. I just…

Okay, tell me.
My perception is, there is right now, as we’re talking, there’s a black kid who just left a public-school system in which he’s using a ten-year-old book in a classroom that barely has lights, and he’s getting a poor education. And that bothers me. Right now there is a family that is dealing with an alcoholic, abusive parent or just got word that a relative has been killed in gun violence. Drug addiction, the AIDS infection rate, the poverty rate within my community is as significant today as it was in 1963. More so. The side of me that is very honored by what happened—and I am indeed honored by his election, because he and I are part of a small family, if you will, of black leaders who dared the system—still does not change the realities that we still must confront.

But don’t you think you both want the same thing for the kid with the old textbook?
I do. Absolutely. But I think the dance is gonna be on how you do it. You know? I philosophically believe, you know, that the individual has the greatest opportunity and power to change their fate. I’m less reliant on government to do for me than I am on myself and my network, my family, you know. It’s a different perspective.

You came from a very Democratic family, is that right?
Oh yeah. My parents were Roosevelt Democrats.

How did you become a Republican?
My mama raised me well.

No, really. What was it?
Ronald Reagan was a big influence. I was fascinated by what he had to say. He sounded a lot like how my mother raised me, back in that time. When my dad died, our church, our family, our friends, really put a lot of pressure on her to go on welfare, to get a government check.

And instead she worked in a laundry, didn’t she?
Sterling Laundry. As a presser. For forty-three, forty-four years. The most my mother ever made was $3.80 an hour. And I remember asking her why she never went on welfare, and she said, “I didn’t want the government raising my children.”

So you become a Republican. But you also decide, after graduating Johns Hopkins, to go into the priesthood? What a decision.
It’s a huge decision. And of course my friends were like, “You’re going to be a what?” You know, because I had a small reputation at Hopkins, you know—

As what?
I loved to party—still do—and have a good time.

Did you date a lot in college?
No, I didn’t. I had a lot of girl friends, and I loved—I love hanging out with women, sometimes more than men. You know, sit back and let your hair down type thing? So I knew what I was walking away from. And the one thing I always try to convey to young men and women who think about joining a religious order: Never look at it in terms of what you’re giving up, because you’re not giving up anything. You’re making a choice to live your life a certain way—celibate, poor, and obedient.

And you weren’t just flirting with this. You were there three years.
Yeah, I was. I got my habit, actually.

What were those three years like?
It was painful, it was joyful, it was, uh, challenging, it was calming. I mean, look, you’re making a radical shift in your life. And that’s why, you know, a lot of people, when they look at priests, what they don’t understand is, the man before you made a commitment long before the moment you see him. And in that journey a lot of things come and go that challenge him, that test him, that make it difficult to stay faithful, to stay true to his call. It’s a real hard thing. And you realize that as you’re sitting there in chapel and you’re praying. And then you go out into the world, and the world is looking at you, and you’re in full habit, and you’re working, you know, in the community, and a pretty young thing comes by… I mean, there are tests like that. And I appreciate those tests, I really do. Because it strengthens your vocation. It pushes you to think about whether or not this is the life I want. I remember, when I left the order, saying to my novice master that, you know, throughout the priesthood there are those who should be taking this step that I’m taking today. And sure enough—what, ten years later?—the scandals start breaking.

That had to be hard for you to watch.
It was very hard, because I knew there were men who should not have been there. These are individuals who were, you know—they used the priesthood as a place to go hide.

It’s a very safe closet, isn’t it?
Yeah, it’s a very safe closet to go to and hide who you really were, what you really felt. And the church paid a dear price for it.

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

So you think it’s a state issue?
Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Despite all the hits you’ve taken, you sound pretty excited to be here.
I’ll tell you, it’s a real honor. It’s good. It’s good. It’s fun. It’s exciting. It’s an opportunity that, growing up here in D.C., I never thought I’d get. And now here I am. I mean, who’da thunk it in 1963 that in 2009 two black men would sit on top of the political world of this country? How friggin’ awesome is that? You cannot look at that and not go, “Wow.”

Have you had any dealings with Barack Obama?
Nooo. I tried, I tried. When he first came to Washington, I was two years into my term. At that time, I was the only African-American lieutenant governor in the country. And when Obama became senator, my office called his office several—no, more than several—times, to invite…for the two of us to sit down and get to know each other. I was gonna welcome him to my hometown, Washington, D.C. I figured, you know, take him out and get to know each other. And his office told my staff they didn’t see any need for the two of us to meet. So I’m like, “Oh-kay. All right. I don’t know what that’s all about, but that’s fine.”

And did you do that with everyone who was newly elected in the Senate?
No. I reached out to him brother to brother.

Brother to brother?
Yeah, you know: “There are only two of us, Barack, just you and me. You’re the senator, I’m the lieutenant governor.” ’Cause you didn’t have, you know, the black governors in New York and Massachusetts. It was just us. And I don’t know if it was a staff thing, I don’t know if it was a personal thing, I don’t know what it was. But we never got to meet. And then, when I ran for the senate [in 2006], he was the only African-American elected official in the country to come and campaign against me. Nobody else.

What do you make of all that?
I don’t know. One day I’d like him to explain it to me. Because it bothered me.

If he were to say, “Come over to the Oval Office, since I’m trying to be so bipartisan”—
I’d do it in a heartbeat.

And what would you say to him?
Let’s work together.

But what could you accomplish? He came in saying, “I want to work with both sides, I want to cross the aisle”—and it’s ugly already.
Because they haven’t been very bipartisan.

Do you think bipartisanship can work?
No. [pause] Look, I’m sorry, I know this is, you know, la-la land and Rodney King time and we all wanna get along, but that is not the nature of American politics. That is not the nature of politics, period.

I don’t know if refreshing’s the word, but to hear someone say bipartisanship doesn’t work—
It doesn’t work! I mean, I understand the ideal of it. But at the end of the day, this is a game of winners and losers. This is zero-sum. Your winning is my losing. My winning is your losing.

Okay, so if bipartisanship doesn’t work, what on earth would you and Barack Obama accomplish by sitting down together?
You find a common ground.

What’s the common ground now?
Economic recovery—that’s the common ground. That’s the goal. The common ground is what we ultimately decide we can live with. And that means what I’m willing to sacrifice and what you’re willing to sacrifice. In other words, I’m willing to give up something on X if you’re willing to give up something on Y.

How has the economy affected you?
Oh, my gosh. I’ve seen a 50 percent drop in my retirement, you know, so now I’ve gotta work a little bit longer. And it’s a big deal. I’ve only gotten into a position where I can save long-term in the last two or three years. I mean, I’m basically living like most Americans, and still do, you know—working paycheck to paycheck, trying to make the ends meet. I got a kid in college. I got a mortgage. I got all these things I gotta deal with, like everybody else.

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

How’d you miss the boat?
Well, we missed the boat in that we don’t talk about it. We don’t share that part of the story. We don’t understand and appreciate it enough to actually get out and articulate it. We miss it, we just completely miss it. We don’t see it for what it is, as a part of our philosophy. And so I’d like to see us do more of that, to engage in that conversation.

All right, how much is being a black man gonna help you do that?
I have no idea. Because I still think there’s a degree of racism that exists out there that you still have to confront. You know, folks see me walk in a room, they don’t see the chairman of the Republican Party, they see a black man just walked into the room.

You think that?
Yeah. So that’s still… In this era where we have a black president, that doesn’t change my reality.

But it does.
How?

Doesn’t it change perception?
Oh, you mean to tell me because Barack Obama’s president, teachers all of a sudden are gonna magically—

No, that’s not—
Wait, now, hold up! Gonna have a textbook on her desk that’s current as opposed to ten years old?

No, but—
All right, so how… So at what point does it change?

Maybe the question is, what good change comes from his election?
The only good change that comes from it is that it happened. The rest is up to us individually. It happened, all right? Now what? How does this help us deal with redlining? How does this help us deal with driving while black? How does this help us deal with bad education?

I would imagine that you are more valuable to the Republican Party today because you’re a black man.
Um, I don’t know. We’ll see if that’s true. [laughs] I would like to think I brought value to the Republican Party long before Barack showed up. I mean, I’ve been doing this long before he showed up.

Well, would you have this job if you were white?
Would I have this job? Now, that’s the reverse of the question I typically get. I usually get, would I have this job if the president were white? And my answer to that is yes. But would I have this job if I were white? [long pause] The answer to that is I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s a very good question. And it says a lot about, I think, where the party is right now that I can’t answer it.

What was your reaction when you first heard that McCain picked Sarah Palin?
I loved it.

You did?
Well, I know the governor. I know her. I liked her. And you know what? To be fair, before she was demonized and denigrated by the national media, a lot of people thought it was a bold, ballsy move. They thought, Wow.

Yeah, well, wow can mean a lot of things.
I can tell you for a fact, because I’ve got the e-mails. I somehow got in some Democrat loop; I have friends who sometimes include me in stuff, and then they forget I’m there, and they continue to send it out, and people start responding. That weekend, there were e-mails that went around that basically said, “Ohmigod, we’ve got to stop this. We’ve got to make sure that within ten days McCain is kicking her off the ticket.” Because they knew what she represented, after what they’d just done to Hillary Clinton. They put Hillary so far under the bus, she became a tread on the tire.

You still like Palin?
I do.

Is she the future of your party?
She’s one of many leaders that we will have emerge over the next, uh, four to seven years, yeah.

At the end of the day, did she help or hurt the ticket?
I think she helped immensely. I think, uh, people want to put it in the context of how the liberal media responded to her. They were threatened by her.

Why would the media be threatened?
Because! This woman had appeal!

Why would the media be threatened by someone with appeal?
Because they have their own agenda! Remember, in my view, Barack Obama is their creation. I mean, come on! They got behind him very early, and they stayed with him all the way through. And they’ve admitted it. Even The Washington Post—what was it, two weeks after the election?—finally said, “Oh, yeah, I guess we were a little biased in our reporting on Barack Obama.” This country still doesn’t know who this man is!

You believe that?
You don’t know what his philosophical orientation is.

How did you feel when the Muslim rumors were going around?
I didn’t have any feeling about it. I mean, he got up and said, “I’m not a Muslim.” All right, fine, let’s move on. But that speaks to, you know, concerns people have.

Go on.
Again, you can’t put this in the context of just Republicans or right-wing scary folks. I mean, I know a lot of Democrats. I’ve had the conversation—I live in a black community, I hang out in Starbucks there, and there are people who have that concern.

You mean your Starbucks hasn’t closed yet?
No, my Starbucks has not closed. And it better not! You cannot close a Starbucks in a black community. We’ll riot!

So, Rush Limbaugh—good or bad for you guys?
Rush is a friend. I like Rush. Rush is a bomb-thrower extraordinaire. And we need him. We need him because what he does is, he stimulates debate. And I know it drives a lot of folks on the left loony. But so does Al Franken for us. Okay? So don’t give me, “Rush is a bad guy, we need to offset him.” You already have. You got Al Franken, for goodness sakes.

What about Ann Coulter?
Ann Coulter is one of the best bomb-throwers in the business. She is the Carville of the Republican Party, although I think she’s probably a little bit better at it at times. I think it’s precious the way the Democrats react to her and many others, like Rush Limbaugh. I just find it hysterically precious that they’ve become so sanctimonious about her and what she has to say. Yes, she’s got an edge to her—and it’s great.

Let’s go back to the economy. You taught economics as a seminarian, didn’t you?
I did.

In your opinion, what’s the Republican alternative to the stimulus package? Is it “Do nothing”?
No! See, the Democrats totally miss the point. The Republicans weren’t saying, “Do nothing.” Republicans have been saying, “Do the right thing.” And the right thing is to concentrate on that sector of the economy that triggered this in the first place: housing. That had a residual effect on other industries—the financial institutions and banks. And put in place the strategies that would help correct the problem there, and incentivize the small-business owners throughout the country, who are the ones who actually do the hiring and firing in this nation. Because 70 percent of the workforce works with small businesses. So the reality of it is, Do the right thing.

How much of the blame do you think Republicans should take for getting us into this mess?
I think—look, I’m not denying our share of responsibility here. Just like the Democrats who sat on those congressional committees—when the president and Republicans were saying that there’s a problem with Freddie and Fannie—were poo-pooing that and saying, “No, it’s just fine.” I’m not absolving anybody for this mess.

What specifically do you blame Bush for, economywise?
Oh, my goodness. The massive bailout at the end of his term? I mean, I don’t even want to use—I don’t even want to get into a blame game, ’cause that’s typical Washington stuff.

What do you think Bush’s legacy will be?
You know, I think the closeness of his administration to events right now and the public perspective on those events and his handling of those events and the outcome—you know, right now, I think, has a mixed result. ’Cause while everyone could scream and jump up and down about the war, you can’t take away from the guy a number of things. One, he didn’t waver in his determination to keep America safe, which has resulted in eight years now without terrorist activity on our soil. He put in place the mechanisms that I think will serve the Obama administration very well, and in fact, as we see, the Obama administration is adopting a lot of Bush policies on the war and the approach for homeland security—including bringing on his secretary of defense. So when people talk about—you know, during the campaign—that John McCain would be a third Bush term? Welcome to the third Bush term, when it comes to national security and foreign affairs.

What’s your opinion of Cheney?
Perhaps one of the most effective and one of the most important vice presidents the nation has had, period. Period. I don’t care if you like the man, I don’t care if you hate the man, you cannot take away from the fact that he was an individual who redefined the role of a vice president at a time of crisis, who brought gravitas to the job.

Do you have any criticism of how Dick Cheney played his role?
Oh gosh, yes. But I think, at the end of the day, the American people are a little bit better off, a little bit safer, because of what he did. Now, we can make the argument about the style of it, we can make the argument about some of the details of it, but it was effective.

Did you ever vote for a Democrat?
Oh yeah. Absolutely.

Who?
Oh, now, you know I’m not gonna tell you that.

Well, how many Democrats have you voted for?
Quite a few. I mean, remember where I live. I live in Prince George’s County! I’m outnumbered five to one—so you know, there are ballots where there’s not a Republican running.

Did you ever vote for a Democrat for president?
Uh-uh.

No? Okay.
Well, I take that back. I take that back. Let me think, let me think. I’m going back to my first vote.… Um, I was really annoyed with Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon. Because I thought, you know, when you dishonor the office of the presidency the way he did—and I liked Nixon for his policies, I liked Nixon for a whole lot of things, but Watergate to me was just one of those low points. Not just for the Republican Party but for our country. So when you dishonor the office that way, I don’t think you get a pass. That was my first election that I voted in. I was 18. And I had a very strong view on it, and I still do. Uh, so, I’m trying to remember back, if I had a view that was so strong that I actually wound up voting for Jimmy Carter. Um… [long pause] No, I don’t think it was that strong. [laughs]

But you’re not sure?
No, I didn’t do it. I didn’t pull the trigger.

But you came close?
I did not pull the trigger, no. No, I probably wound up voting for Ford.

Probably? Okay. Which Democrat do you most admire?
Aw, wow. [extremely long pause]

You can do dead or living, if that helps.
Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking. Um…you know who it would probably be? Probably Harry Truman. The guy wasn’t given a dime’s worth of respect, and I kinda know how that feels.

Did you watch the Oscars?
I did! I love the Oscars. Despite what Mr. Shales said in his review in The Washington Post, I liked it. I thought it was: [claps]. And the host! Who knew?

Did you watch the red-carpet stuff, too?
I did. I’m looking for who’s got what dress on, you know? I’m looking at the dresses. I’m lookin’ at what they’re doing with the hair. I’m lookin at the fellas. Now, you know, guys are wearing black and white, and I get that, but there’s some style points I could share with some of these brothers out there who just ain’t gettin’ it together.

What do you think of Barack’s sartorial skills?
I… You know what? [drumming fingers on his desk] The white tie at the Inauguration was not working. That was wrong. I’m sorry, white tie only goes with tails. Sor-ry! Wear the tails, bro. Get the waistcoat and the tails. And the studs—you can play around with the studs if you want, but c’mon, bro, don’t do the white tie. Did Not Work. And it did not complement what she wore.

Yeah, how do you think she’s doing?
Oh, I lo— [stops himself] I think she’s doing great so far. But the inaugural dress, I wasn’t feelin’ that.

No?
Nooo. Didn’t like the cut. It was not flattering to her. All the little puff things on it—what was that all about? She should have been there in a, you know—she could have done a Valentino, but she’s a little more hip than that. I just thought it was a little bit [pause]…not her is the only way I can put it.

Are you always impeccably dressed? Are you like this at home?
Yeah! Oh, my kids hate it. I’m the guy who tucks his undershirt into his pajamas. I mean, that’s how bad it is. My kids, they die when they see me. They’re like, “Dad, take the shirt out of the pants.” But the idea of having, like, my shirt outside of my pants?

Not gonna happen?
It happens, but it happens on very rare occasions. And I probably will have to have had one or two drinks before.

lisa depaulo is a GQ correspondent.

Mark Seliger took on the daunting task of photographing, over the course of two months, all twenty-three people in our Men of the Year portfolio—from Leo DiCaprio to Michael Phelps to the world champion Boston Celtics. There were atmospheric location shoots (Danny McBride, igniting a stuffed-animal bonfire in the woods), along with F/X extraordinary (Aaron Eckhart, fleeing a flaming automobile) and not so extraordinary: “I flew to Philly with the Obama-campaign press corps,” Seliger recalls. “On the flight, I asked an aide for two minutes with Obama. She found me a slot. When we got off the plane, I hung a white sheet in a doorway and photographed him; they actually gave me a minute and forty-five seconds.” The photographer’s impression of the candidate? “He’s got this look where you just know: That’s the guy. He’s gonna do it.”

Here, in an exclusive GQ Radio segment, Seliger gives GQ deputy editor Michael Hainey the complete backstory on the making of the Obama cover. Listen here:

Or click here for a free download of the segment via iTunes.

Photographs by Mark Seliger

Barack Obama at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, October 2, 2008.

A Closing Statement

This morning, George W. Bush strolled out to the Rose Garden—looking approximately five hundred years old—and delivered a statement congratulating Barack Obama on his victory. For all of you Bush-haters out there, take a look at the transcript, because it will completely screw up your mind.

This was the George W. Bush that not quite half of America voted for in November 2000. The man who said that he was a uniter, not a divider. The man who emphasized hope, inclusiveness, and compassion. That man seemed to disappear very early on in 2001. He resurfaced this year, as the lamest of lame ducks, during the financial crisis. Bush abandoned the my-way-or-the-highway bellicosity seen in his failed Social Security gambit of early 2005. He knew the country was in peril, and all he wanted was a deal. His Legislative Affairs team oversold the prospects of the initial bail-out package, and Paulson and Bernanke proved to be inept pitchmen. But Bush kept pressing, and in fairly short order he put his signature to a rescue plan. And today, with what sounded like heartfelt sincerity, the president saluted the man who had spent the last 21 months bashing him. "It will be a stirring sight to watch President Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their beautiful girls step through the doors of the White House," he said. "I know millions of Americans will be overcome with pride at this inspiring moment that so many have awaited so long. I know Senator Obama's beloved mother and grandparents would have been thrilled to watch the child they raised ascend the steps of the Capitol—and take his oath to uphold the Constitution of the greatest nation on the face of the earth."

If you feel a little cheated by this glimmer of what might have been—well, you're entitled. And you might even gross yourself out with wistful sensations when you read my piece about my experiences with Bush (while interviewing him for my book Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush) in the upcoming January 2009 issue of GQ.

But I digress, though not really. Because like every other American, my mind today is on the future occupant of the Oval Office. Already Obama has shown adeptness at learning from his own as well as other people's mistakes. I do not expect that we will see a repeat of the gays-in-the-military saga that crippled the Clinton presidency right out of the starting blocks. I do not think that he will defy the nation's centrist sensibilities with any Ashcroft-style Cabinet appointments.

Still, I hope that he studies well the experience of his immediate predecessor, who came to the White House having understood the vicissitudes of the office better than any man who had not previously served as president or VP. As governor, Bush talked to me incessantly about the executive "bubble," about changing the culture of Washington. He understood the pitfalls. He figured he had it all gamed out. I'll let tomorrow's tweedy eminences assess his overall legacy and go out on a limb on this particular matter: Bush did not make a serious effort to unite the country. Nor has he seemed particularly conscious of this failure—murmuring sadly, like a Beltway incarnation of Robert Oppenheimer, "I am become Washington." Instead, as he told me once, "I'm a results-oriented kind of guy." Well, the results are in. America is far more divided now than when Bush first took office. He now maintains that divisiveness is the residue of a leader making tough decisions for the future benefit of the country. George W. Bush wouldn't have bought that line of reasoning in 2000, and most of us don't buy it now.

President Bush's compulsion is to be consequential. Obama's is to conciliate. But President Obama will face enormous pressure from his party—from men and women who have been waiting a very long time for this moment of partisan dominance—to dismiss process in pursuit of results. If that occurs, and if inclusiveness is seen (to paraphrase our Veep) as some trifle of civic virtue rather than an end unto its own, then 44 will join 43 as children of Oppenheimer, destroyers of worlds they had themselves once envisioned.

That's it. Thanks for reading, everybody. I promise never to do this again.

McCain's Concession

What we saw was a very stricken man sucking it up and delivering a speech written by a very stricken man sucking it up. The book now closes on one man and opens on another. It's Obama's world now. And now, change.

McCain's '08 Legacy

Will McCain regret it?

That's the question I'm asked most frequently as people refer to the 11th-hour avalanche of Republican ads relating to Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, appeasing Iran (with rippling footage and mosque music), and the confiscation of guns; as they listen to the Arizona senator wind down this epic campaign accusing Obama of socialism and lack of pride for America while proffering Joe the Plumber as an American emblem; as his running-mate, Sarah Palin, gallops through a laundry list of Obama's horrifying friendships.

Is this what John McCain wanted to be talking about in his quest for the presidency?

Of course not. He wanted town halls. He wanted to discuss Iraq's future. He wanted this to be about experience, integrity, American exceptionalism. He wanted Joe Lieberman by his side. He wanted Bush's name and record to be sub rosa. He wanted us to be reminded, again and again, that he had bravely fought his party on immigration. (Until he didn't.) He wanted to invoke and evoke Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, David Petraeus. He wanted to blast the pork-barrel spenders. He wanted to implicitly remind voters, as one of his advisers told me four years ago, that "it's McCain's world we're living in."

But that was before Obama roared out of obscurity. That was before Iraq fell off the front pages, replaced by a subject that McCain had to some degree farmed out to Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan. The world ceased to be McCain's. The kind of change he represented in this "change election" was never effectively explained to American voters. I personally believe that a President McCain would be quite different from President George W. Bush. Having said that, I'm not sure I could describe to you concretely how McCain's world travels and affection for William Trevor will make America a better place. If anything, the narrative spasms and internal disgruntlements describing the McCain campaign give one pause in considering how John McCain would run the White House.

Four or five months ago, I was having drinks with former Bush counselor Dan Bartlett. I allowed as to how the two presidential nominees were of such civic caliber that America could likely expect a high-minded campaign. Bartlett's expression was priceless—like that my dad wore when I was six years old, saw a spotlight go across the sky and asked if that were God. "Do you really think that?" the old Texas political hand asked with a grin. "Hey, we're still a divided country. I think its gonna be down and dirty all the way to the end."

McCain's insistence that a series of rolling town halls with Obama would've elevated the campaign's tone strikes me as dubious. Maybe they would've stood onstage arguing about the surge and tax cuts for the wealthy for ninety minutes once a week. The rest of the time would still have been devoted to Bush 2 vs. Wright/Ayers—and, of course, to merciless recapitulations of whatever gaffes had arisen from each town hall. Lincoln and Douglas didn't have to suffer the exhibitionistic, trivializing mania of the 24-hour news cycle. God, think about it! By the sixth or seventh town hall, the disgust with both candidates would probably reach toxic proportions.

But to return to the question: Will John McCain continue to fall back on Obama's town hall turnabout and thereby not look back on his campaign with regret? The answer is: It depends on how America regards him down the line. If McCain loses and thereafter is remembered not for his heroism, his senatorial rigors, and his free-wheeling campaign style, but rather for the intensely personal attacks on Barack Obama's character, then I don't see how he can avoid bouts of personal recrimination.

I would hasten to add, however, that John McCain exerts a fair amount of control over his destiny. Should he lose, then it will be up to him to determine his next act. Will he run for re-election to the Senate in 2010 at the age of 74 and strive to work across the aisle under the shadow of an Obama administration? If not, would a President Obama reach out to McCain and encourage him to take an appointment? (McCain as diplomat: Dig, if you will, the picture.) If John McCain goes neither quietly nor in bitterness but in a final burst of statesmanlike fervor, he'll be enshrined rather than vilified. And America will be the better for it.

Now I'd better commence my 112-mile drive to my polling station east of Capitol Hill.

When Obama Won It (If He Does)

If Obama wins this, the reason will be 2004. That's the year he gave his keynote address at the Democratic convention and thereby vaulted into the national consciousness. But that's also the year John McCain worked harder than any Republican to ingratiate himself with the party faithful and thus become Bush's heir apparent. A notoriously lackluster raiser of funds on his own behalf, McCain toured the country incessantly that election cycle on behalf of fellow R's, including Bush. His efforts marked the beginning of a party outsider's quest to be seen as a loyal GOP insider—culminating in his May 2006 commencement speech at Jerry "Agent of Intolerance" Falwell's Liberty University. (Though probably the oratorical flourish Mark Salter would most like to delete came during McCain's prime-time speaking slot at the 2004 Republican convention, in which the senator gave a shout-out to "the steady, experienced, public-spirited man who serves as our vice president, Dick Cheney.")

The fruits of that pursuit are twofold. McCain secured the nomination, but along the way the once-bright line separating the maverick from his unpopular party leader was all but obliterated. The greatest failure of the McCain campaign has been its inability early on to highlight the distinctions between their guy and Bush. Then again, the maneuvers required after McCain's cheerleading in 2004 would hemorrhage a crawfish.

Joe the Bloviator

A few minutes later, Joe corrects himself, saying the Reverse Bradley Effect was cooked up by people in an opium den in Hollywood or Greenwich Village.

Way to clean that one up, Joe!

At the Polls in Richmond

Richmond, Virginia, 5:45 a.m. Election Day morning. East side of town, densely African-American. Dark, drizzly morning. At the polling booth on North 31st and M, a line of 138 waits under umbrellas—some in chairs, a couple in wheelchairs. The first four in line tell me they arrived at 3:30 a.m. "They said to get here early," one of them told me. Less than a mile away, at the recreation center on North 25th and M, the line wraps around the block. All the way around, at 6:08 a.m. The question is whether the long lines will deter others.

The voting official by the door tells me, "We've got extra people, extra machines. I used to work in theme parks. As long as you keep 'em moving, they're happy."

I tell him how many people I've counted: 503.

"My word," the official murmurs, going very pale.

Meanwhile, on "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough is saying, "Anyone who says there's a Reverse Bradley Effect is smoking crack."

Jaworski '08

You might as well know which candidate I intend to support in this election. It's the Democrat: Joe Jaworski, running for Texas state senate district 11, which includes hurricane-devastated Galveston. Joe's my cousin. A great 3-term city councilman for the area, he's now running against a well-funded incumbent whose work ethic Texas Monthly recently compared to "furniture."

Here's Joe's latest ad—handsome fella, ain't he? If you're not in trouble with the law, please send him all of your money.

Even Laura Hardly Mentions George

In Kentucky this afternoon, the First Lady gave an 11-minute talk at a GOP rally. Here is the sum total of what she said about her husband and the Republican presidential ticket:

"After months of primary elections, campaign ads, and debates, tomorrow is finally Election Day. (Applause.) I'm really looking forward to Election Day, partly because it seems like George has been on the ticket this entire year. (Laughter.) The Republican Party has a great ticket: a real American hero, John McCain—(applause)—and a strong executive and proven reformer, Governor Sarah Palin. (Applause.) I'm proud that John McCain chose a Republican woman, Sarah Palin, to run with him on our ticket. (Applause.) And I'm proud of all the impressive women who have served in my husband's administration—women like Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. (Applause.)"

Back to Peterborough

You wondered why McCain spent yesterday evening in New Hampshire, a state he's unlikely to win. Nostalgia had something to do with it, but so did superstition. McCain tends to carry totems of the campaign trail with him—medals, feathers, pretty much whatever the hell people hand him—and is very leery of tossing them out, Mark Salter once told me.

The town of Peterborough, where McCain conducted perhaps the last town hall of his political career last night, also carries a certain significance. He kicked off his previous campaign there in the summer of 1999, in which the main draw was free ice cream. On the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, McCain returned to Peterborough Town Hall, to a packed house that included giddy supporters heaving from the rafters like Yankee fans reaching out to graze the Babe's uniform. Eight years later, McCain experienced a similar arc: a poorly attended event in Peterborough after his campaign imploded last July, followed by a standing-room-only crowd the night before he beat Mitt Romney in the '08 NH primary.

McCain going back to Peterborough well proves one other thing: He's the one ultimately in charge of his campaign. No way Steve Schmidt would've put New Hampshire on the schedule with two days to go.

Old Dominion

If Obama takes Virginia, it's over for McCain.

It may be over for him anyway. But even if the Republican sneaks off with Pennsylvania—and though the polls don't look good for him, PA's the one state where I think you can count on a lot of undecideds breaking Mac's way—McCain will have poured enormous amounts of time and money into picking off a blue, only to find red Virginia slipping from his grasp. If Obama adds the Commonwealth to his expected red-state haul of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire, he can ignore the returns in the Keystone State and further south in North Carolina. It'll be an early evening.

Not that McCain has given up here. He was in Newport News last Saturday and just finished up a rally in Blountville, TN, which reaches the Virginia markets. And anyone with a TV here can have the pleasure of viewing some of the most sharp-elbowed attack ads of the presidential campaign. These include the GOPTrust.org's airing of Jeremiah Wright's greatest hits (God Damn America, USKKK of A), closing with a framed photo of Obama with his "mentor"; an NRA ad suggesting that Obama will be an enemy to hunters (though I haven't yet seen in VA the "Where is this guy from?" ad the NRA's running in PA); and the McCain campaign's "Preconditions" ad in which a tape of Obama is made to look and sound like a bin Laden production.

And in any event, Virginia's not an easy get for Obama's ground game. There was no early voting here—only absentee, which Obama's state organizers didn't do much to exploit—so lines at the polls are going to be ferocious tomorrow. But here in Richmond, black churches are pitching in with buses and other forms of GOTV support. Obama state HQ is among the most vibrant I've seen. The symbolism of delivering Old Dominion to a black candidate is a potent motivator. Meanwhile, temperatures will be in the sixties tomorrow throughout most of the state.

The Atheist Card

Before I turn my attention to Virginia (having arrived in Richmond at 2:00 in the morning), one thing I forgot to mention that I observed while following a canvasser through African-American neighborhoods in Durham, NC. The "godless Americans" ad that Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been running against Kay Hagan might well have boomeranged, as desperation tactics often do. But that doesn't mean it has been thoroughly ineffective.

The Obama canvasser knocked on one door answered by a forty-something black woman with three children. She took the early voting material offered and then was asked, "Are you voting the straight Democratic ticket?"

"Obama, yes. Perdue, yes," the woman replied, referring to gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue. "But I ain't voting for Hagan."

"Why?" the canvasser asked.

"I heard she doesn't believe in God," said the woman. "That kind of thing."

A PA Surprise?

Waking up at 6 a.m. in a hotel room that could be anywhere—where am I? Looking out the window, I see a couple of short, scruffy folks asleep on a bench. So this could be Hobbiton, or…ah yes, Asheville, NC. Fine city draped in autumn colors. Palin drew 5,000 here last week (not including the Zombie Festival participants), and Obama shacked up at the Grove Park Inn for his town hall debate prep. I lived here for 4 years. Great place for acquiring hempwear.

Greeting me this a.m. was an email from an Obama volunteer that ought to give Democrats a heart attack. She'd been getting out the vote in a certain bellwether county in PA, in a neighborhood that Obama officials said was likely to fall their way. Turns out the area was festooned with McCain/Palin yard signs. Residents yelled at the Obama volunteers to go away. One hollered that Obama was a "Marxist baby-killer."

You'll find anybody anywhere, I suppose. But considering the Obama campaign had regarded this neighborhood as one of theirs, one might be forgiven for questioning their numbers.

Don't paint PA blue yet.

Ground Game

Standing in the spin room on the evening of the last debate, I encountered RNC chairman Mike Duncan. With the breezy self-assurance of a man who must not have any money in the stock market, Duncan allowed as to how the Republican ground operation was in all ways superior to the Democratic counterpart. "They just throw money out there," he told me. "They really haven't advanced any since 2004. Not as much as we have, anyway."

I'm told that the Obama campaign has fifty thousand volunteers in the state of North Carolina. Fifty thousand. Furthermore, early voting among African Americans in NC has more than canceled out the number of GOP early voters. Chairman Duncan may be right—maybe those efforts will prove to be a waste of money. But if it's 8pm Tuesday and VA and NC are already in the Democratic column, it'll be Duncan having to explain to the party faithful why he poured all of their case into PA while somewhere to the south, Rome burned.

Campaign Mechanics

I heard it several times from McCain's top advisers: Every focus group they assembled pointed to Obama's inexperience as their predominant objection. The focus groups were referring to governing experience. But I also heard these advisers argue that McCain's superior experience as a campaigner would help carry the Republican across the finish line. One of them said to me, "This is what a lot of people discounted in the primary and Obama's discounting now. And that's that McCain's been through this, he's seen it all before, he can be more dispassionate and I think he's much more educated on the mechanics of running for president than Obama is right now. And if you look at who's been more discombobulated about the events on the ground in this campaign, it's Barack Obama. And that's probably because he's never been through it and doesn't know what it's like. There's no owners manual, you know."

It happens that the adviser told me this in mid-September, on the very day that McCain repeated his assertion that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. But the point was a debatable one even back then. Certainly Obama has committed a few screw-ups (bitter America, spread the wealth), and the McCain campaign hasn't let him forget them. But Obamaworld has been highly disciplined—the power squabbles that I know of are about as consequential as those on NBC's The Office—and that's directly attributable to the man at the top, who tells his advisers when he hires them that they'll be fired instantly if caught leaking and that he doesn't want any drama in the building.

All of this is on my mind as a result of a conversation I had this morning in Chapel Hill with one of John Edwards's former top contributors who now writes his checks to the Obama campaign. The donor spoke elaborately of the organizational exactitude he found in the Chicago operation. But it was when Obama joined the conference call of a fundraising strategy meeting that the ex-Edwards backer was blown away. "He was like one of those great motivational CEOs," he enthused. "He said, 'Now, we can't get cocky, we can't let up. We've got to work hard and work every day.' And then he went through all of these ideas very efficiently and inclusively. Never for a second did you wonder who was in charge."

Punk'd!

While spending yesterday afternoon near downtown Durham following an Obama canvasser through an exclusively African-American neighborhood, I confess I didn't exactly fill my notepad with penetrating insights into the campaign's ground game. I did, however, enjoy this exchange between the canvasser (a young African-American man named Moses) and an older fellow who was standing in the middle of the street, squinting at us as we approached:

Canvasser: Sir, I'm Moses with the Barack Obama campaign. Have you early voted yet?

Man: I have. Voted for your guy just yesterday.

Canvasser: That's great.

Man: I'm still kinda poutin' over Hillary, though.

Canvasser: Really? Why's that?

Man: (shrugging) Best candidate. Most qualified.

Canvasser: Wh—

Man: You know, we got a real gender problem in this country. A real gender problem.

Canvasser: Not anymore. McCain's got Palin!

Man: (thoughtfully) Yes, he does. First I felt like he kinda punked America by pickin' her. Startin' to look more to me like SHE punked HIM.

Canvasser: She's laughing now!

Man: She is. Good day to you both.

Obama's NC Strategy

Talk about the audacity of hope. In recent weeks, Obama, his wife Michelle, and surrogate General Wesley Clark have all visited the military base town of Fayetteville, North Carolina. That’s right into the teeth of McCain Country. Fayetteville has a sizable black population which the Obama campaign hopes to animate. But the events I’m referring to are geared to military audiences.

I’m not sure I understand the logic of such a concentrated effort. Then again, I’m equally bewildered by the McCain campaign’s decision to send 150 “captains” into Wisconsin for their 72-hour drive this weekend. My guess is that in both cases, the respective campaigns see value in transmitting a meta-message about not conceding turf without a fight. But do the resource allocations suggest that the McCain campaign feels it doesn’t need all hands on deck in PA, or that the Obama campaign is confident they’ve got a better chance in NC than in OH?

North Carolina (where I lived for four years) is one of those states that would make any otherwise stable pollster want to open a vein. Right now the early voting totals are almost laughably in Obama’s favor. But Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt was feeling similarly confident in his 1990 Senate race against Jesse Helms, ‘til the infamous “Hands” ad awakened the sleeping bubba and crumpled Gantt’s chances. Obama’s top people in North Carolina tell me things are different now. They say the Republican bastion of Wake County (which includes Raleigh) has undergone demographic shifts in a manner similar to northern Virginia—meaning, it no longer qualifies as Real North Carolina—and is imminently gettable. They say they’re making gains among whites in the western county of Buncombe, and not just in granola-flecked Asheville. They say they’re not especially worried about a Bradley/Gantt effect undermining their efforts.

But their tactics suggest otherwise. Why else would you send Michelle Obama to Rocky Mount, NC, six days before the election? Rocky Mount has not seen a presidential candidate, or family member, since Bill Clinton’s bus blew through town without stopping in 1992. Its population barely tops fifty thousand. But 56% of those are African American. It’s a mother lode of first-time and sporadic black voters. So you deploy the candidate’s spouse to speak before a predominantly black audience of 1,500 at Rocky Mount Senior High, as the campaign did day before yesterday. The results are a spike in early voting and Get Out The Vote volunteers. Rocky Mount is energized, and the Bradley/Gantt effect is thereby countered. That’s the idea, anyway. And though no one will come out and say it, there’s a reason why the Obama campaign isn’t chest-thumping about what they refer to as their “Af-Am GOTV.” A half-century ago, white Southerners spoke openly of the dreaded “Negro bloc” that agitators from the northeast were trying to galvanize so as to dismantle the region’s cultural order. Well, that Negro bloc is here, in places like Rocky Mount. But so are the diehard exponents of that old cultural order. This the tightrope that Barack Obama has walked—thus far, with Wallenda-like proficiency.

By the way: I’m aware that I write long sentences in long paragraphs. I know that’s not the way bloggers do things. Sorry, but I’m just as God made me. Love ya. Not gonna change for ya. Let’s hug it out.