HRC Sells Us Out By Endorsing Lieberman

[Taylor Mason Powell]

HRC can go to hell. Not a penny will I be giving to them, and I'm taking the sticker off my car. Here we have Joe Lieberman, facist enabler and apologist, who voted for DOMA and who is on the wrong side of the greatest HUMAN RIGHTS CATASTROPHES of our time (Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Alito), and HRC goes and endorses HIM over Ned Lamont, who is pro marriage equality! This is outrageous and appalling.

Read Joe Solomonese's WEAK justification here. Then be sure to click through and read the comments. Some sharp people give him righteous hell, much better than I could.

There's no excuse for any HUMAN RIGHTS organization, gay or not, to support the loathsome Joe Lieberman. I don't care that he pays lip service to gay equality. Joe Lieberman is NO FRIEND to the GLBT community, no friend to the left, no friend to justice or human rights. He needs to be GONE in November and I'm deeply disappointed that one of our major GLBT-rights organizations has decided to put Washington power politics ahead of what's right.

[roody]

1. I second that emotion!!!

[monarch]

5. I third it

I bet that their CT donations dry up. I know at least 5 that have sworn to stop donating and HRC supporters are very informed about politics.

[marmar]

2. That was a wimpy-ass justification...

And doesn't Lamont have much stronger pro-LGBT stances?

[Plaid Adder]

3. The HRC sold us out when they fired Cheryl Jacques.

We stopped donating after that.

The Plaid Adder

[sui generis]

20. We were donating but very unhappy to lose Jacques

She was articulate, grounded in fairness and "equality" (imagine that!) as core human values, and had the kind of vision and nobility and charisma that is required to make progress in the beltway.

I suppose those factors also made enemies - among us, surprisingly.

This is just too much though. We depend on the people we support as "leaders" to be enough like us to resonate with our issues, and also different from us in that they make the right decision when things aren't clear more often than we would in the same place and with the same information.

I don't believe that's really happening this time around - and a political organization as powerful as HRC has the power to make REALLY BAD decisions.

Lamont supports civil marriage.
Lieberman provisionally supports the FMA, and it is unlikely he will vote differently than his past statements.

That was a classic bad decision; at the very least they should have withheld an endorsement without an unassailable rationale.

[dsc]

22. baldly false

He voted against the amendment the last time it came up.

[sui generis]

23. baldly false?

that's annoying - I remember the interviews with Lieberman mushmouthing around on this and running the segment time out without giving a bold "yes" to do you support same sex marriage.

For the record I despise the DLC and it's "moderates" who can't answer a question directly and unambiguously. Lamont is direct and unambiguous. . . and ON RECORD.

At any rate, if you will be honest here and recall that Lieberman's reason for his final position the last time was that marriage didn't need protection since he'd already voted for DOMA, not because he's Brother Theresa about gay issues.

[dsc]

29. There are several people who don't support same sex marriage

and don't support the amendment. John Kerry is one example as is virtually every Democratic Senator.

[sui generis]

30. well quite frankly that's not a great sales pitch

and a sign of huge moral weakness in our party.

Here's a message to same senators: if you want our vote, earn it. If you don't want to be bothered earning it, then don't whine when we don't vote for you. How simple is that.

I'm a human before I'm a gay man, and I'm a gay man with a family before I'm a democrat, and much of the "street" of the gay community is now starting to think this way. Quite frankly given the choice between a liberal republican and a conservative democrat on these issues I wouldn't even think twice, and that's a lesson that our democrats need to learn. If they are moving to the right to get the votes of undecided middle voters, there will be republicans moving to the left to get the votes of undecided middle voters.

How do we deal with that? "Vote for me, I'm not the other guy" just isn't good enough, and when Solmonese is spinning like a top (lying through his teeth) to make Lieberman look pro-gay, you know the game is up with that organization.

[idgiehkt]

4. Thanks for posting that.

I was afraid to.

[mike_c]

6. LOL-- I thought you meant...

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[susanna]

7. Me too...what does HRC, in this case, stand for?

Never mind - is it the Human Rights Coalition?

On edit: sorry - acronym fatigue.

[dsc]

18. campaign

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Lieberman is "winnable"

Lamont has no chance of winning, as the DLC has already annointed Lieberman to be the winner. Therefore, the HRC is avoiding the messiness of a primary and going with the already decided Democrat candidate. In other words, go with the winner, not with a loser, no matter how bad the winner might be.

Gee.... I'm sounding just like the DLC ass-kissers who endorse incumbent Maria Cantwell for Washington Senator over Democrat challenger, Mark Wilson, don't I?

Anyway, it is just another example of how the Democrats and their bleating sheep are once again betraying the GLBT community.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

9. Aw, don't give up on Lamont!

I'm very very far from CT, so you may be right that he has no chance, but I can still hope! And I can still send Lamont money....

Plus, when is it finally time to ditch the political expedience and do the right thing? Gee, now I'm sounding like the Naderites I so despise. :-) I think it's because I really detest Lieberman.

[GodlessBiker]

33. That's all they care about. Hence, they endorsed D'Amato (oops).

[dsc]

10. Should they refuse to endorse any Democrat who doesn't support marriage?

Frankly I am far more outraged by their endorsement of Chafee then that of Lieberman. Chafee votes for Frist as Majority Leader and thus a party of homophobes as chairs of committees.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

14. If that Democrat is running against a Democrat who does support marriage

...then yes. This isn't a choice between Lieberman and some horrible Republican. Lieberman is being challenged in the primary by a man who had this to say regarding marriage: "if two people are in love and want to get married, God bless ’em."

HRC could have at least withheld their endorsement until the general election, in the hopes that Lamont could pull it off. Plus, as one commenter stated on that Huffington Post page, one cannot easily separate gay rights from all the other human rights issues on which Lieberman has failed us so miserably - most notably Iraq. And let's not forget that Lieberman had a chance to maybe block Alito (by voting against cloture), but he didn't do it. And then has the gall to brag about voting "No" when it was too late to make a difference? Ick. I understand that Lieberman has a generally progressive voting record, but he's really failed us these last six years. To the point where no true progressive should be supporting Lieberman against a credible liberal primary challenge.

[dsc]

15. They have a policy of endorsing incumbents even over

better challengers. They did that with D'Amato vs Schumer and with Jeffords in his last race (against an openly gay opponent). As to the other point about other issues that isn't relevent. The HRC is a gay and lesbian rights organization and for all we know its membership is split on the war in Iraq.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

16. Irrelevant?

I completely disagree. Yes, it's a GLBT-rights organization, but all these issues are interconnected. I'm certainly not supporting any organization that endorses warmongering fascists in primaries against much better candidates. It's bad enough that my tax dollars go towards this horrible war. And anyway, even completely disregarding those other "irrelevant" issues, what about the issue of, you know, GLBT rights? Is that issue important enough for the HRC? And what about Alito? Surely you don't think that's irrelevant to gay rights.

[dsc]

17. Alito is a different story

I am not sure where I would draw the endorsement line on that. Lieberman voted against Alito but also against the filibuster. Lamont has no record vs Lieberman's mostly postive one. I would vote for Lamont in the primary if I lived in CT. I honestly think that HRC should have either not endorsed at all or endorsed both candidates in the primary. But I stand behind the idea that only votes on gay and lesbian issues should decide the endorsement though party leadership is a vote on these issues as well.

[sui generis]

19. blind policy is bad judgement

they should have withheld the endorsement. They have two fewer members today.

The people we expect to go to bat for us need to have better sense, and if they don't then they can go get their money and support from the LCR.

We are NOT split equally on the war - common sense alone dictates that.

Lieberman has stated openly that he is "for states rights" (to discriminate) and against "same sex marriage". I presume in the absence of a clarifying statement that he is also against federal recognition of "state" civil unions and registered partnerships.

Finally, we want to endorse candidates who have our best interests in mind and the wherewithall to do something about it. Lieberman's track record disputes that.

[dsc]

21. He was in favor of civil unions on the federal level

though he stated he would make a right by right judgement as to what rights they would have.

[sui generis]

24. not good enough - more mush mouth crap. /nt

[sui generis]

25. the critical mistake here isn't endorsing Lieberman

the mistake is not anticipating the fallout. That's bad leadership and bad judgement.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Ouch! They telemarketed me last night for a small....

election year donation. I was half asleep. I said 'yes'. Luckily, I told them no credit card and I would send them a check.

Lamont got more than 33% support among party insiders at the state convention and actually has a reasonable shot at upsetting Lieberman in a low turnout August primary.

He also has a good shot at beating two republicans ( Lieberman and the GOP designate) in a November three way.

[xchrom]

12. i've been so good about supporting them -- no more.

[Ian David]

13. I'm canceling my pre-scheduled donations right now. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

26. The HRC has been taken over by LCRs and their ilk

Their endorsement of Lieberman comes as no surprise to me. They, in return, should not be surprised that I stopped supporting they sold out to GOP sycophants. I'd only be surprised if there isn't a huge pic of Mary Cheney on the HRC home page by now.

[theHandpuppet]

27. BTW, anyone want a side dish of crow?

I could see this coming a mile away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=28619

Anyone who's been tracking the going-on with the HRC in the past year knows it's been "assimilated".

[sui generis]

31. crow is good! tastes like chikkin. /nt

[cboy4]

28. Ughh. Do you guys think I need to change my avatar now??

damn the HRC is such a pain in the ass.

So much drama

[swimboy]

32. They are a pain.

They are fu*kin' up bad. So what about these avatars?

It grieves me that they have worked to achieve this visibility but now I am very uncomfortable with so many of their endorsements.

[cboy4]

35. I know....but I just love the symbol. It says it all.

:dilemma:

[jonnyblitz]

34. HRC is the DLC of gay groups. they endorse "gay friendly"

republicans, too.